Opinion
No. 345205
03-14-2019
In re B. L. L. OTTINGER, Minor.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Cass Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 16-000005-NA Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and MARKEY and LETICA, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care and custody) and (j) (reasonable likelihood that child will be harmed if returned to parent). We affirm.
Although respondent-mother released her parental rights to the minor child during the termination proceedings, she did not appeal and her parental rights are not at issue.
This case arises from child protective proceedings initiated after the child was exposed to mother's drug use and domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend. On January 8, 2016, petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), petitioned the trial court to remove the child from mother's home. In September 2016, respondent was established as the child's biological and legal father. On October 28, 2016, the DHHS filed a supplemental petition alleging that respondent did not attempt to intervene or protect the child despite being aware of the child's removal from mother's care, mother's drug use, and the domestic violence in the child's home environment. On December 6, 2016, respondent offered a plea of admission to the petition, and the trial court accepted respondent's plea.
Respondent participated in various services with certain modifications to accommodate his cognitive impairments, but the trial court found that respondent lacked attunement to and understanding of the child's needs. The trial court also determined that respondent was not able to independently take care of the child. Ultimately, the trial court determined that statutory grounds to terminate respondent's parental rights were established and that termination was in the child's best interests.
On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred in determining that petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and that petitioner made necessary accommodations for respondent's disability. We review the trial court's findings regarding reasonable efforts for clear error. In re Smith, 324 Mich App 28, 43; 919 NW2d 427 (2018).
Respondent does not argue that the trial court erred by determining that petitioner established statutory grounds for termination or by determining that termination was in the minor child's best interests.
Generally, "the [DHHS] has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights." In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich 79, 85; 893 NW2d 637 (2017), citing MCL 712A.18f(3)(b) and (c); MCL 712A.19a(2). Additionally, the DHHS must "modify its standard procedures in ways that are reasonably necessary to accommodate a disability under the [Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12101 et seq.]" In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich at 86. As part of its reasonable efforts, the DHHS is required to create a case service plan outlining the steps that it and the parent will take to rectify the conditions that led to intervention and achieve reunification. Id. at 85-86. The case service plan must include, in relevant part, a "[s]chedule of services to be provided to the parent, child, and if the child is to be placed in foster care, the foster parent, to facilitate the child's return to his or her home or to facilitate the child's permanent placement." MCL 712A.18f(3)(d); see also In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 156; 782 NW2d 747 (2010) (discussing a parent's statutory right to participate in a case service plan). The parent should be given a reasonable time to make changes and benefit from services before termination of parental rights. See In re Mason, 486 Mich at 159. The trial court should regularly update the plan to account for the parent's progress and developing needs. Id. at 156.
Respondent's argument that petitioner failed to offer him reasonable services and accommodations is without merit. Petitioner offered respondent numerous services, including a psychological evaluation; an intake assessment regarding respondent's mental health, cognitive impairments, and substance use; in-home parenting training; parenting observations and assessments with the minor child; random drug screens; supervised parenting time, and transportation to services and appointments. Respondent voluntarily participated in additional parenting classes of his choosing. Petitioner and the foster-care worker also provided respondent with reasonable modifications to accommodate his cognitive impairments, including increased contact with the caseworker, reading the case service plans and evaluations to respondent to ensure that he understood them, transportation to services, frequent offers by the caseworker to provide additional services and support, in-home parenting time so that respondent was not required to travel to parenting-time visitations, and assistance from the caseworker during parenting time. Additionally, petitioner added respondent's mother to the parent-agency treatment plan to act as a support person for respondent and to assist him in parenting the minor child. Respondent's mother participated in parenting time and parenting classes, a psychological evaluation, and a parenting observation and assessment with the minor child. Respondent participated in these services for a significant period—over one and a half years—by the time of the final termination hearing. Respondent's service providers indicated that they were aware of respondent's cognitive impairments and accommodated them by repeating the material, writing down the material, and providing additional explanations, as needed.
Despite these services and accommodations, the trial court reasonably found that respondent had difficulties anticipating the minor child's needs, problem solving, supervising the child, and understanding the child's verbal and nonverbal communications. The trial court also found that respondent was dependent on others for support and guidance to meet his own needs and that he was not attuned to the child's physical, behavioral, and developmental needs. Finally, the trial court found that respondent was not able to effectively help the child regulate the child's emotions or to provide structure and support for the child. The trial court determined that respondent was not able to independently provide proper care and custody for the minor child and that the child would be at risk of developmental harm if placed with respondent. On this record, respondent simply has not demonstrated that the DHHS failed to offer reasonable services and accommodations for his disability.
Although respondent's mother was introduced as a support resource for respondent, the record suggests that her support was insufficient to assist respondent in providing proper care and custody. There was also a reasonable concern that the paternal grandmother's own ongoing health issues would impede her ability to assist respondent.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Anica Letica