Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic; Effect of the fact the other parent’s termination case was still ongoing; In re Medina

Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-mother with her child or err in terminating her parental rights while the father’s case was still ongoing, the court affirmed the order terminating her rights. She did not challenge the trial court’s findings as to statutory grounds or the child’s best interests on appeal. Rather, she contended that it erred “because she did not receive benefits from the DHHS given the COVID-19 pandemic and because father’s parental rights had not been terminated.” But the court noted that the record showed she “was offered alcoholics and narcotics anonymous meetings and family team meetings that she refused to attend. She refused to complete more than half of the 76 drug tests offered, and she canceled 54 of the 85 parenting-time visits. Additionally, [she] was offered Michigan Works and unemployment resources and therapy for her mental health and substance abuse, for which she had inconsistent attendance. [She] canceled or refused to attend some of these services even before the COVID-19 pandemic.” She missed multiple visits with the child before the DHHS required virtual visits due to the pandemic. “A respondent has the responsibility to participate in the services that are offered.” The court added that “any alleged error was not outcome-determinative and did not affect mother’s substantial rights because [she] still presented a barrier to reunification at the time of termination when she was refusing all services and stated that she believed that she did not need services related to her mental health or substance abuse.” As to the father’s status, the court noted it held in Medina that one parent’s rights may be terminated without termination of the other parent’s rights.