e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 77650
Opinion Date : 06/16/2022
e-Journal Date : 07/05/2022
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Rush
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Letica, K.F. Kelly, and Riordan
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Child’s best interests

Summary

The court concluded the trial court did not err by finding DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and did not clearly err by finding § (c)(i) supported termination and that terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights was in child-LR’s best interests. DHHS repeatedly offered her “services aimed at rectifying the conditions that led to court involvement to allow for reunification.” The court concluded that providing those “services constituted reasonable efforts for reunification,” and noted she raised no issue with the services in the trial court. Although she “eventually completed the psychological evaluation, participated in individual therapy, and visited LR frequently, respondent failed to address her substance-abuse issues or complete drug screens, failed to obtain appropriate housing for herself and LR, and failed to provide proof of her income.” Thus, the record belied her claim. The DHHS “worked at reunification for over two years despite respondent’s apparent refusal to address the underlying issues that led to court involvement—respondent’s substance abuse and lack of permanent housing.” Respondent claimed that “she could not complete the drug screens because she did not have the necessary pin numbers to do so and because she had transportation issues.” Neither of these were valid excuses. DHHS provided her “the requisite pin numbers on at least five occasions,” as well as bus tickets. “After two years of failing to comply with her service plan—without raising any issues with the plan—respondent moved to Arizona with no stated intention to return.” While there, she continued to avoid her required services, all of which DHHS “rereferred her to in Arizona; respondent again raised no objection with the services that she failed to utilize. Respondent thus failed in her ‘commensurate responsibility’ to participate in the services” DDHS offered. She now asserted “she should have been provided a parent partner to assist in completing her services, and that DHHS failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Although the trial court originally ordered a parent partner, [DHHS] could not provide one due to a lack of funding for that program. In light of the numerous other services offered to respondent, the lack of a parent partner cannot be deemed substantial.” Moreover, her implication that “she had some type of intellectual disability” was undeveloped and nothing in the record showed an ADA violation. The court found that rather “than being unable to complete the drug screens and substance-abuse counseling due to a disability, it appears respondent simply refused to do so[.]” Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion