Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); “Active efforts” required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 USC § 1901 et seq) & the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) (MCL 712B.1 et seq); MCL 712B.3(a); MCR 3.002(1); In re JL; “Serious emotional or physical damage”; § 1912(f); 25 CFR § 23.121(c)-(d); Child’s best interests

The court rejected respondent-mother’s claim that the DHHS failed to make the active efforts to prevent the breakup of the family required by the ICWA and the MIFPA, and concluded the trial court did not err in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that her continued custody of the child “was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” It also did not err in determining that §§ (c)(i), (g), and (j) supported termination, and that this was in the child’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the order terminating respondent’s parental rights. While the child’s two older siblings were originally also involved in the case, one turned 18 during it and the goal for the other was changed to a guardianship, so only one child was at issue in this appeal. The court first concluded that the trial court did not err in finding the DHHS made active efforts to develop “an appropriate supervision plan, but that respondent simply refused to make the changes in her own life that were necessary to implement any viable supervision plan.” In addition, while she made “a fair argument that it would have been more natural to have visits involving all three children at once, and she should not have been required to do all of the driving[,]” in light of their various issues and placements, it was “not clear from the record that regular joint sessions were actually possible,” or that driving them “around would have ensured their safety.” The court further determined that the trial court did not err in suspending her parenting time “after the child reported that respondent had instructed her to act out in her placement.” As to the issue of serious emotional or physical damage, the evidence, including opinion testimony by a Native American expert (C), “reflected that respondent and the children all had serious emotional problems that interfered with their ability to function. [C’s] opinion was supported by her knowledge of and involvement in the case. Respondent unilaterally ended her therapy without much benefit and consistently failed to show a willingness to provide a supportive and supervised environment. The child had a severe need for stability and support that respondent clearly was unable to provide and, in fact, . . . undermined throughout the case.”