When Michigan’s Children’s Protective Services (CPS), a division of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) seeks to remove children from a parent’s care, strict procedural safeguards apply. In a significant published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed that courts and agencies must follow those rules before separating families.
In re Shimmons/Hare, Minors
In In re Shimmons/Hare, Minors (published on June 9, 2026), the Court of Appeals vacated an Ogemaw County trial court order removing two children from their mother’s care after finding multiple violations of our Michigan Court Rules governing CPS child protective proceedings.
This case began when CPS filed a petition in July 2025 seeking jurisdiction over the children. Importantly, the original petition did not request removal. At the initial preliminary hearing, the mother appeared, confirmed she had received the petition, and the court postponed the CPS hearing so appointed counsel could be obtained.
Several weeks later, following a new domestic violence allegation, DHHS filed an amended petition requesting the removal of the children. On the same day the amended petition was filed, the trial court conducted what it characterized as an emergency removal hearing. The mother was not present. Substitute counsel appeared but advised the court that he had not spoken with her and did not know her whereabouts.
The Court of Appeals Finds Multiple Procedural Violations
The Court of Appeals held that the September 5 hearing was not a valid emergency removal hearing under the appropriate Michigan Court Rule. The court explained that emergency removal proceedings require compliance with specific procedures, including authorization of the petition and entry of an order placing the child in protective custody before the emergency removal hearing occurs. Those required steps were not followed.
Our Michigan appellate court further ruled that the trial court lacked authority to order removal because neither the original petition nor the amended petition had been authorized as required by the governing court rules. Even assuming the court believed the children faced risk, the procedural requirements established by Michigan law could not be bypassed.
Notice Requirements Were Not Followed
The Court of Appeals also found a critical notice violation. Because the September 5 proceeding was not a valid emergency removal hearing; the matter should have proceeded under the notice requirements applicable to a standard preliminary hearing. Procedure under the proper Michigan Court Rule says, written notice generally must be provided at least seven days before the hearing. That did not occur.
Mother Was Denied a Meaningful Opportunity to Be Heard
According to our Court of Appeals, these errors deprived the mother of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. She was absent from the hearing, her substitute attorney had no meaningful opportunity to prepare a defense, and the trial court relied on findings from the defective proceeding when later authorizing the petition.
The appeals court ultimately concluded that the procedural defects affected the mother’s substantial rights and seriously undermined the integrity of justice. The removal order was vacated, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Why This Case Matters for Michigan Parents
For Michigan parents facing CPS investigations or child protective proceedings, this decision serves as an important reminder: due process matters, and courts must follow the rules before children can be removed from a parent’s care.
The Kronzek Firm has been fighting for parents against CPS for more than 30 years.