Reasonable reunification efforts; Factual findings

The court held that the trial court did not err by determining the DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reuniting respondent-mother with her family, and thus did not err by finding that statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights were established. Also, she did not show “that, even if the trial court made erroneous factual findings, these errors infected its termination decision such that reversal was required." Respondent cited “the portion of her psychological evaluation recommending that she attend AA or NA and obtain a sponsor, but [did] not explain how DHHS failed to facilitate her doing this.” She testified that she “attended some AA meetings, although no testimony was solicited concerning whether she had obtained a sponsor.” Respondent did not show the trial court should have found that the “DHHS failed to provide her with services regarding respondent’s participation in AA or NA, programs which do not generally require a referral and which respondent herself admitted she had attended.” She also argued that the “DHHS refused to provide family counseling despite” her request. The testimony of her “caseworker made it clear that respondent was informed that the prerequisite for family counseling was that respondent engage with and make progress in her individual therapy.” Yet the record showed that she “only sporadically attended her individual counseling sessions over the period of a few months in late 2019 and early 2020, before, according to respondent, beginning individual counseling with a new therapist” in 3/21. But her “recent participation in counseling could not be independently verified by either records or testimony, and in fact the trial court did not find this testimony credible.” Additionally, she “was referred to a comprehensive program that included family counseling as a service provided, but quit the program after less than one month.” And even if her testimony as to “her counseling was credible, respondent herself testified that she and her therapist were ‘not ready’ to have her mother join their therapy sessions.” She also did “not explain how any additional services provided by DHHS would have made a difference in the outcome” here. The court held that even if the “DHHS had permitted family counseling, the record shows that respondent repeatedly failed to engage with or benefit from counseling services. DHHS’s duty to provide services is matched by a respondent’s corresponding duty to benefit from" them. The court found no clear error in the trial court’s ruling. Affirmed.