Failure to timely conduct a removal hearing; Inquiry into whether the child or either parent is a member of a Native American tribe; MCR 3.965(B)(2) & (11); MCR 3.967(A); Plain error review; Reasonable reunification efforts; Burden of proof or a standard of proof for determining whether reasonable efforts were made; MCR 3.965(C)(4); MCL 712A.19a(2); The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); Parent agency treatment plan (PATP)

The court held that the trial court did not (1) plainly err in failing to conduct a removal hearing or (2) relieve petitioner-DHHS of its obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts. Further, respondent-mother failed to establish plain error as “to the burden of proof and standard of proof applicable to reasonable efforts.” Thus, the court affirmed the initial order of disposition entered after her child’s (TVM) removal from her care. She did “not challenge the determination that TVM is not an Indian child for purposes of the ICWA.” Rather, she asserted “the referee erred by failing to conduct a removal hearing within 14 days after TVM’s removal from her care as MCR 3.967(A) requires when ‘an Indian child is taken into protective custody.’” The court found that she failed to show plain error. As “the referee determined that TVM is not an Indian child, and the trial court adopted” this determination, she “was not entitled to a removal hearing.” She argued that a timely removal hearing was “required because the court rule does not require that confirmation of tribal affiliation from a tribe is a prerequisite to holding a removal hearing. However, MCL 712B.17 and MCR 3.967(D) require that a qualified expert witness from, or with sufficient knowledge of, the child’s tribe testify at the removal hearing. Without knowledge of the child’s tribal affiliation, the DHHS could not have obtained such an expert. Accordingly, determining TVM’s tribal affiliation was necessary before the referee could have held a removal hearing, and the referee appropriately recognized that good cause existed to adjourn the proceeding.” The court also found the record did not support her “claim that the trial court relieved the DHHS of its duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify respondent and TVM following adjudication.” Among other things, the “trial court’s orders entered before [her] no-contest plea repeatedly stated that reasonable efforts shall be made to reunify the family.” And the referee adjourned the 8/29/24 “hearing so that the DHHS could prepare an updated and accurate” PATP. At the subsequent “hearing, the referee adopted the new PATP as reflected in the order following that hearing. The updated PATP required respondent to, among other requirements, complete a parenting-education course, participate in mental-health services, and learn communication skills to effectively co-parent with TVM’s father.”