Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); The Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act

The court held that §§ (c)(i) and (j) existed for termination of respondents-parents’ parental rights to the children. Also, the trial court did not err by concluding that “the DHHS made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for the children’s initial removal.” Finally, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was presented allowing the trial court to terminate respondents' parental rights under the ICWA and its Michigan counterparts. As to § (c)(i), the court noted that at “the time the children were removed from respondents’ care, the family was living in a camper with no plumbing. The camper was filthy, with raw sewage in a bucket next to the kitchen and the children’s beds.” Respondent-father smoked marijuana frequently in their presence, and the marijuana and drug paraphernalia were accessible to them. “The younger child, then age three, was ill and recently had been hospitalized, but respondents had failed to follow up with medical care for the child. The older child had rotted teeth. Both children were extremely dirty, covered with sores and scabs, and infested with lice.” The court noted that the “foster care worker testified during the termination hearing that although respondents had been provided numerous services for two years, they had not benefitted from the services.” Also, the trial court determined that despite numerous services provided by the DHHS, and “despite active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, the efforts had proved unsuccessful.” Further, the court noted that during “the two years that services were offered, respondents occasionally missed parenting time, were late for parenting time, left early from parenting time, and did not engage the children during parenting time.” Although the father “reported that he previously was employed as a carnival worker, he did not work during the two years the case was pending before the trial court. He stated that he did not need to work because respondent-mother worked at a fast-food restaurant and also had a stipend from the tribe, and that his grandmother was willing to assist them if they needed additional money. Nonetheless, respondents reported that certain repairs could not be made to the house because they lacked money.” Also, the trial court did not clearly err by holding that clear and convincing evidence established that termination of the father’s parental rights was warranted under § (j). Affirmed.