Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re White; Reasonable reunification efforts; Accommodating disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 USC § 12101 et seq.); In re Hicks/Brown; Principle that children should not have to wait for long periods of time in foster care; In re Williams; A parent’s failure to undertake special efforts that a child’s special needs demand; In re LaFrance Minors; Ineffective assistance of counsel; In re Martin; People v. Horn; People v. Pratt; Whether the trial court should have adjourned the termination hearing due to a respondent’s unavailability; Due process; In re Sanders; Plain error review; In re Utrera; In re TK

The court held that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts as to both respondents, and rejected respondent-mother’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a due process violation based on failure to adjourn the termination hearing. It also held that § (c)(i) supported terminating respondent-father’s parental rights. Thus, it affirmed the order terminating their parental rights. She asserted that the DHHS did not accommodate her disabilities under the ADA, and he contended that it failed to inform him “a trauma-informed parenting class would only be offered once and by requiring him to complete that class as a condition of reunification.” The court disagreed with both claims. It concluded that the record showed “no error, much less any plain error,” as to the reasonableness of the DHHS’s efforts to accommodate the mother’s “dyslexia, learning disabilities, and intellectual functioning challenges.” The record revealed that she “failed to participate in services aimed at reasonably accommodating her disability despite the trial court’s” and the DHHS’s efforts. As to the father, the court noted that when “a child has special needs, a parent’s failure to ‘undertake the special efforts that those special needs demand[]’ may support terminating the parent’s parental rights.” The trial court here determined that the father “failed to undertake these special efforts, despite being offered the services to aid him in doing so. The trial court’s decision was based on its assessment of the relative credibility of” the father and the caseworker. The court concluded that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify him “with the children when it offered him the parenting class and he chose not to participate in it.” As to the denial of the mother’s request to adjourn the termination hearing, she voluntarily chose to leave the state while the request was pending, without knowing whether it would be granted. The court found that she “did not show a legally sufficient reason to adjourn the hearing on the basis of her absence[.]” As to the father and § (c)(i), he was “mistaken that his substance abuse was not a condition that led to adjudication” and the record supported that he failed to rectify this issue. He “was unsuccessfully discharged from a substance abuse counseling program and continually tested positive for marijuana and cocaine.”