Lenawee County court adopts dual goal of reunification and adoption after ICPC denies grandparent placement

Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court — The court reviewing the case of a young child removed on 2025-06-12 accepted Pennsylvania court materials into evidence, recorded that an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) investigation had denied placement with the child’s maternal grandparents, and set a dual permanency goal of reunification and adoption.

The judge told the parties that documents received from the Court of Common Pleas in Northampton County, Pennsylvania (filed on the record as 2025-1525) were relevant and were received into evidence without objection. Quoting the ICPC summary, the judge said the Pennsylvania agency recommended Michigan “further assess the relationship between Tanya [the mother] and her daughter, Ellie [the adult daughter], as there is documentation provided to this agency that indicated prior domestic violence and mental health concerns for both individuals,” and noted concerns that some medical records appeared incomplete or omitted.

The department’s counsel reported the mother is engaged in parenting, counseling and psychological services and asked the court to maintain the status quo while continuing case services, and to set a 90-day review so the department can provide a more thorough ICPC report. Defense counsel likewise acknowledged the mother’s engagement and asked for time to pursue reunification or to develop a comprehensive placement/guardianship plan.

The judge said the ICPC denial effectively closed off the court’s ability to place the child with the maternal grandparents, who are in Pennsylvania where the mother is currently residing. The judge noted the child has developing special medical needs and that the record now contains more documentation of the mother’s limitations than at removal.

“Because if she can’t — if she can never achieve reunification because she just simply can’t get to that level of parenting skill, then the goal is clearly adoption,” the judge stated, and formally set a dual goal placing reunification and adoption on the same footing going forward. The court directed the department to obtain fuller assessments (for example, by returning to the original assessor or securing an independent professional) to inform the next report period.

The court set review hearings for both parents for Monday, April 6, at 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and the department requested a 90-day written update in the interim. The judge explained earlier in the hearing that the session had been bifurcated to protect the child’s participation because of domestic-violence issues and pending criminal charges against the father; the court then recessed briefly to connect the father (identified on the record as Christopher Condit) via jail Zoom for his separate review.

The hearing record lists the child as having been removed on 06/12/2025 and confirms the child is currently placed out of the home in Pennsylvania. The court indicated it will revisit the case at the scheduled reviews and that adoption will be pursued only if the evidence shows reunification is not feasible within the court’s timelines.