Judge keeps child in foster care; police report admitted, Jan. 12 reviews scheduled

A judge of the Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court ordered that the child remain in foster care, admitted a police report into evidence and set follow-up review and permanency-planning hearings for Jan. 12, 2026, court participants said.

The decision came after the court received a written court report and case service plans and heard testimony about both parents’ engagement with services, the mother’s unstable housing, a pending Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) request for placement with guardians in Pennsylvania, and possible additional criminal charges involving the father.

Macy Moore, a foster care worker with Catholic Charities, told the court she had recent contact with the legal father, Christopher Cundiff, and that he “confirmed his parenting time for this afternoon” and had provided identification, registration and insurance. Moore said the father remained on the waiting list for the Orchards foster-care supportive-visitation program and that the agency had placed him on a schedule of supervised parenting time and referrals to parenting classes and other services.

Moore reported several updates about the mother: she has begun virtual therapy with Intentional Counseling and Wellness, is off probation, and the adult foster-care case involving her has closed. Moore said a Pennsylvania program for survivors of trafficking and exploitation had a bed available and she believed it “would be a beneficial program.” She also reported that the child is “growing like a weed lately,” is well adjusted to the current placement and has reflux after eating; the child has a doctor’s appointment later in the month, Moore said.

The court admitted a local police report of an investigation into Christopher Cundiff over defense counsel’s objection. The judge explained the criminality aspect of the father’s matter was part of the initial adjudication and said the report was relevant for the ongoing review; the court also reserved to counsel the right to cross-examine witnesses about the exhibit at future hearings.

Nastasia Thomas, counsel for the department, told the court that “the goal for reunification remains appropriate,” but she described the case as still at an investigative stage. Thomas and Moore both said housing was a major barrier for the mother if she remained in Michigan; the department has submitted an ICPC request to enable placement with guardians in Pennsylvania and reported a Pennsylvania worker had completed a home visit but that the written home-study report had not yet been received.

Michael Brooks, attorney for the legal father, said he would oppose relocating the mother or child to eastern Pennsylvania because of the distance between the parents and the child’s current foster placement. In court argument, he said moving the mother “is not in the interest of the child” given the effect on the father’s ability to develop a relationship with the infant.

Father Christopher Cundiff testified that he had been participating in parenting time and had signed up for community mental-health services; he told the court he was subject to travel restrictions tied to local criminal-court conditions and that travel “would be a major issue” for two to four years. The court was told DNA testing for parentage was scheduled for that hearing date.

The judge acknowledged the department’s willingness to support the mother’s reunification goal if placement in Pennsylvania is approved and if legal authority for guardianship or an equivalent is established in Pennsylvania. The judge directed counsel to explore whether the guardians’ authority could be registered or otherwise recognized in Pennsylvania before allowing any out-of-state relocation, and asked mother’s counsel to speak with the mother about her preferences so the court could better understand her intention to relocate.

As formal actions, the court received the written court report and case service plans and admitted the police report into evidence; the judge ordered continued supervised parenting time and continued the child’s foster placement. The court set separate review hearings for the two parties on Jan. 12, 2026 — the mother’s review at 1:30 p.m. and the father’s review at 2:30 p.m. — and scheduled a permanency-planning hearing at that time. The court also instructed the department to keep treatment reports separate for each parent and to report updates at the next review.

The hearing record shows the department will continue to pursue ICPC outcomes, the guardians will pursue guardianship authority in Pennsylvania, and the court will monitor developments in the father’s criminal case and both parents’ participation in services before making further permanency decisions.