Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i), & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.18f(3)(b); MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Hicks/Brown; Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); In re Fried; Effect of a prior involuntary termination; A parent’s obligation to participate in the services provided; In re Frey; Child’s best interests; In re Mota

Holding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that §§ (c)(i), (g), (i), and (j) were met, and that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her rights were terminated based primarily on her inability to care for the child. On appeal, the court first found that the DHHS “had no obligation to provide reunification services because there was record evidence that respondent had not rectified the conditions that led to the prior termination by the time” it petitioned to remove the child. “In any event, the record established that the” DHHS made reasonable efforts. Also, because respondent failed to identify any additional services the DHHS “should have provided her that would have made a difference” in the outcome, she did not identify any errors involving the ADA or the DHHS’s efforts. “Moreover, the record revealed that the [DHHS] accommodated respondent’s special needs and provided her with services that were reasonably calculated to reunify her with the child.” The court next rejected respondent’s argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. “The trial court’s individual findings about the continued barriers proved that respondent had not rectified the conditions that led to the adjudication. They also supported the conclusion that there was no reasonable likelihood that she could rectify the conditions within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.” These findings “also supported the trial court’s determinations that the [DHHS] established the remaining statutory grounds for termination.” Finally, the court rejected respondent’s claim that termination was not in the child’s best interests. “The evidence showed that the child had a strong bond with respondent. That bond, however, did not outweigh the child’s significant medical needs. The child’s safety required a caregiver who could provide him with consistent, constant, and informed care in a safe setting.” Meanwhile, the child “had been placed with a family that included his half-sister and caregivers who were ready, willing, and able to provide him with the care that he so desperately needs.” And it was clear that “respondent would not be able to provide that care within a reasonable time, if ever. Under the circumstances, the child’s need for permanence and stability outweighed the bond that he had with his mother.”