The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated a trial court's order that removed two children from their mother's custody. The decision, issued on June 9, 2026, affects the family involved in the case, as it highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures in child protective proceedings. The ruling emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that parents receive adequate notice and opportunities to be heard in court.
The case, known as In re Shimmons/Hare, Minors, was filed under docket number 377819. The mother, referred to as the respondent, appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that her procedural due-process rights were violated. The court agreed, stating that the trial court did not adhere to the required legal processes when removing the children.
Background
The parties involved in this case are the respondent, the mother of the children AS and EH, and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The dispute arose after a series of investigations by Children’s Protective Services (CPS) due to concerns about domestic violence and substance abuse in the home.
Prior to the removal order, CPS had investigated the respondent multiple times. In 2022, she tested positive for drugs after giving birth to EH, who showed signs of withdrawal. Despite CPS's efforts to provide services, the respondent did not comply with drug screenings and failed to cooperate with home visits. In 2025, CPS received complaints about the unsafe living conditions for the children, leading to the DHHS filing a petition for the trial court to take jurisdiction over the minors.
The Ruling
The Michigan Court of Appeals, led by Judge Mark T. Boonstra, ruled that the trial court's order to remove the children was improperly executed. The court found that the respondent did not receive adequate notice of the emergency removal hearing and that the trial court failed to follow procedural requirements. The opinion stated, "The trial court's blending of the emergency order for protective custody, the emergency removal hearing, and the preliminary hearing into a single, undifferentiated, and procedurally deficient hearing seriously affected the integrity of the judicial proceedings."
The appellate court emphasized that the respondent did not have the opportunity to be properly heard, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. The court noted that the trial court did not conduct a valid emergency removal hearing within the required timeframe and did not provide the necessary notice to the respondent. As a result, the court vacated the order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for child protective proceedings in Michigan. It underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules when it comes to removing children from their parents' custody. The court's decision serves as a reminder that parents must be given proper notice and the opportunity to defend themselves in court.
The ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving child protective services, reinforcing the necessity for courts to follow established procedures to ensure fairness and due process. This case may impact how courts handle similar situations in the future, particularly regarding the rights of parents in child custody matters.
What's Next
The case has been vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether the trial court's decision can be appealed further or if there are any related cases pending.