The Michigan Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court's order that removed a minor child from his father's custody. This decision, made on July 14, 2026, affects the family involved and highlights the legal standards for child welfare cases. The court ruled that the child was already in a safe placement with a relative, making the removal unnecessary.
The case, titled In re J. B. White, Minor (Docket No. 378232), began when the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Children's Protection Services (CPS) became involved with the family shortly after the child's birth in 2016. The child was born with Down syndrome and neonatal abstinence syndrome after being exposed to alcohol and cocaine in utero. The father, referred to as the respondent, had a history of substance abuse and domestic violence, which initially led to the involvement of child protective services.
In 2017, after a report of improper supervision and further admissions of drug use by both parents, the court took jurisdiction over the child. However, the court did not remove the child from their custody at that time. The parents participated in drug treatment and were able to regain custody. In 2021, another petition was filed due to ongoing substance abuse and domestic violence, leading to a temporary removal of the child. The parents made progress, and the court eventually terminated its jurisdiction in May 2024.
However, in August 2025, CPS filed a new petition to remove the child from both parents. At the time, the child was living with an adult sister, and the father was incarcerated. The court authorized the petition for removal, citing the parents' continued substance abuse and domestic violence as the reasons for the decision.
During the preliminary hearing, the CPS investigator testified about the unsafe conditions in the home, including incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse. Despite these concerns, the father argued that the child was already safely placed with the adult sister, who had power of attorney over the child. The court, however, ruled against the father, leading to the appeal.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision and found that it had erred in ordering the child's removal. The court stated, "We agree with respondent that the trial court clearly erred by finding the conditions for removal satisfied under MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C)(2)." The judges involved in this ruling were M. J. Kelly, Sima G. Patel, and Daniel S. Korobkin.
The court emphasized that the child was already in a safe and appropriate placement with the adult sister, and the father had voluntarily placed the child in her care. The court noted that the trial court's reasoning for the removal lacked sufficient evidence, stating, "It was clear error for the trial court to find that respondent did so, and petitioner points to no evidence in the record to support such a finding."
This ruling has significant implications for child welfare cases in Michigan. It reinforces the importance of evaluating the safety and appropriateness of a child's current placement before deciding to remove the child from their home. The court's decision highlights that a child can be adequately safeguarded in a relative's care, even in the context of ongoing parental issues.
Going forward, this ruling may affect similar cases where parents have made arrangements for their child's care with relatives. It sets a precedent that courts must carefully consider existing placements and the safety of those arrangements before ordering removal. The ruling also emphasizes the need for clear evidence when making decisions about child custody.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if the case will be appealed further. The court has reversed the removal order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. If CPS wishes to pursue removal again, they will need to present updated evidence and findings that satisfy all the factors outlined in the relevant statutes.