Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; MCL 712A.19a(2); Whether aggravating circumstances existed; Absence of a case service plan

Holding that the DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-father with his child in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the court reversed the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights, and remanded. The trial court found that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the child’s removal “because there was a family team meeting, a Kids Talk interview, therapy was provided for [the child], and respondent was ‘encouraged to participate in therapy.’” It added that “‘the main thing’ [the DHHS] did was to encourage respondent to ‘engage in mental health services,’ but that he did not do so.” The trial court found that giving him a case service plan “would ‘cause more harm’” to the child, and it “expressly stated that it had ‘no reason to believe that if he was offered a case service plan that anything would be different.” As such, it “determined that—notwithstanding that no case service plan had been offered and although there were no aggravating circumstances so as to justify the denial of reasonable efforts—termination” was in the child’s best interests. On appeal, the court agreed with respondent that termination was premature because the DHHS did not prepare a case service plan for him. The DHHS “did not provide [him] with a case service plan outlining the steps that it and [he] would take to rectify the issues that led to court involvement and to achieve reunification. Nor did it make any reasonable efforts to reunify him with his child.” Although the caseworker “might not have believed any services would be effective, the legislature determined that [the DHHS] is required to make reasonable efforts to reunify parents in respondent’s position with their children. That is, even if [the DHHS] itself believes that such services will ultimately be futile, it must nevertheless make the statutorily mandated reasonable efforts to achieve reunification.” The trial court erred by finding “a case services plan was not necessary because it would not have ‘made any difference.’ Our Legislature made the determination that reasonable efforts to achieve reunification must be made in all cases except those involving enumerated aggravating circumstances.” As those circumstances were not present here, “the trial court erred by excusing [the DHHS] from making reasonable efforts.” Moreover, to the extent it found the DHHS, “in fact, made reasonable efforts by ‘encouraging’ respondent to seek therapy on his own,” it clearly erred.