Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re Gonzalez/Martinez Minors; Modifications to a service plan to accommodate a parent’s disability; The Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101 et seq.); In re Hicks; MCL 712A.18f(3)(b); MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Smith; Admission of transcripts from a prior termination case; Plain error review; In re Utrera; Right of confrontation; Austin v. United States; Inapplicability to child protective proceedings; In re Brock; Abandoning a claim; Berger v. Berger; Harmless error; Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co.; MCR 2.613(A); Ineffective assistance of counsel; In re Simon; Cullen v. Pinholster; Strickland v. Washington; Juror misconduct; Unibar Maint. Servs., Inc. v. Saigh; MCR 2.611(A)(1); Bynum v. ESAB Group, Inc.; Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (j) supported terminating both respondents-parents’ parental rights to their infant son, or in determining that doing so was in his best interests. It also did not clearly err in concluding that the DHHS provided respondent-mother with reasonable services for a reasonable time, and the court rejected her claims of evidentiary error and ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, the trial court’s denial of a mistrial on the basis of juror misconduct was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. There was evidence that the mother “had cognitive limitations and was dependent on others to provide her with support. The evidence further showed that she had a history of erratic and violent outbursts. She was also involved in an abusive relationship” and minimized the danger associated with this. While there was some evidence that she “might separate from respondent-father after the most recent incident” of domestic violence, the “evidence that she had repeatedly failed to appreciate the danger that domestic violence posed to her and her baby, when considered with the evidence that she was highly dependent on others, permitted an inference that she would continue to expose her child to domestic violence.” Testimony also showed that she “had difficulty learning even basic” parenting skills. While some witnesses indicated they believed she had made progress, “there was also compelling evidence that she did not and would not benefit from the services designed to help safely parent and avoid domestic violence.” Evidence showed that the father had a history of choking and hitting the mother “in moments of rage, which was entirely consistent with the tendencies revealed by his psychological testing.” While some witnesses opined that he “benefited from domestic violence counseling, those witnesses were not particularly credible.” There was conflicting evidence as to the danger he posed to the mother and to the child, and the court was not left with a “definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake when it found” that the child would be harmed if returned to the father’s home. Affirmed.