Judge directs adoption as permanency goal for infant after Lenawee County review; child to remain with relatives

Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court — At a permanency-review and planning hearing held Oct. 25, 2025, the court directed that the permanency goal for an infant identified in court records as Kenzie Wright be changed to adoption and ordered that the child remain in a relative placement pending further proceedings.

The change follows testimony and reports that the court and the Department of Health and Human Services said show limited, inconsistent engagement with court-ordered services by both parents and concerns about substance use. Nastasia Thomas, counsel for the department, told the court, “I believe that it’s appropriate to ask for a goal change to adoption,” citing the child’s need for “permanency and stability and finality.”

The decision came after testimony from the child’s mother, Christina Lemley; the child’s father, Matthew Wright; a clinical social worker who had treated Lemley, Elizabeth Reyes of Saginaw Odyssey House; and caseworker Macy Moore of Catholic Charities. Reyes testified that, based on her work with Lemley and recent drug-screen results, “At this time, I would say her relapse risk is very high.” The court also reviewed earlier adjudication records and evidence introduced during prior review periods.

Why it matters: The child was removed from parental care June 21, 2024, and has lived with relatives since that time. The court found that neither parent demonstrated sufficient, sustained progress in the court-ordered case service plans during the current review period to support reunification. The judge said the court would leave the child in the current relative placement as the least-restrictive, safest option while the new permanency goal is implemented.

Court findings and orders - The court announced a change in the permanency goal to adoption and said the written order “will reflect that, that has been directed by the court today.” - The child will remain in the relative placement. The judge scheduled the next review and permanency-planning hearing for Dec. 9, 2025; the judge said that if the department files and serves a termination petition in the statutory timeframe, the court would conduct the trial as part of that hearing.

What the hearing covered - Department recommendation: Thomas argued the department had provided reasonable efforts at reunification and that, given the parents’ limited benefit from services and credibility concerns, adoption was appropriate. - Mother’s testimony: Christina Lemley testified about confusion over visitation rules and disputed parts of her former clinician’s account. She said she supports guardianship if that is what proceeds but denied some characterizations of her behavior and contested the way some positive drug screens were described during testimony. - Counselor’s testimony: Elizabeth Reyes, a clinical social worker who treated Lemley at Saginaw Odyssey House, described interruptions in Lemley’s outpatient engagement and confirmed a positive drug screen in July 2025; she characterized Lemley’s relapse risk as high. - Father’s testimony: Matthew Wright disputed the basis of some earlier allegations that led to the dependency case, objected to elements of his case plan (including domestic-violence programming), and said he had not been consistently engaged; the court and parties discussed his lack of participation and outstanding warrants and housing instability noted in the record. - Caseworker evidence: Macy Moore and the department described attempts to engage both parents and concerns about mother’s unsupervised contact with the child when placement expectations were not followed (the transcript records a visit that led to concern about the child’s return condition).

Court direction and next steps - The court directed that the child remain in the relative placement and left the scheduled Dec. 9, 2025 review on the calendar. - The department may file a termination-of-parental-rights petition; the judge said a timely-filed and served petition could be heard at the Dec. 9 hearing. - The court invited the parties to an accelerated review if needed and asked counsel to coordinate with the caseworker on any reexamination of the case service plan. Father’s counsel said he intends to file a motion to review the case service plan.

Context and background The child was born in January 2024 and removed from parental care on June 21, 2024. The hearing transcript reflects prior adjudication activity in July 2024 (including a bench trial for the father and a no-contest plea by the mother) and multiple review hearings since removal. The court cited a history of missed or incomplete participation in services, inconsistent counseling engagement by the mother, and safety concerns raised by caseworkers when parents did not follow placement or visitation conditions. The court emphasized the child’s young age and the importance of stable, drug-free, and safe caregiving arrangements.

Outlook Unless the department withdraws a termination petition or the record changes materially before the Dec. 9 hearing, the court indicated it will proceed toward a termination trial as part of the scheduled review. The child will continue in the relative placement while the department and parties prepare for the next hearing.

Ending note: The court closed the hearing after confirming scheduling and instructing counsel and the caseworker to coordinate any necessary filings and family-team meetings prior to the December review.