Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Hicks/Brown; Whether entry of a no-contest plea as to the statutory grounds waives the right to contest the adequacy of reunification efforts; In re Rood; In re Fried; Effect of the DHHS’s failure to prepare a written case service plan & to regularly update it; MCL 712A.18f; Plain error review; Prejudice; Adequacy of provided services; Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Effect of a relative placement

The court held that “respondent-father’s waiver of his right to contest the statutory grounds for termination did not also waive his right to contest the adequacy of DHHS’s reunification efforts.” Further, it concluded the “DHHS violated the relevant statutory provisions by failing to prepare and regularly update a case service plan.” But the court found this error did not require reversal because he could not show prejudice given that he was offered adequate services and reasonable reunification efforts were made. Finally, it held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the child’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the order terminating his parental rights. The DHHS contended his entry of a no-contest plea as to the statutory grounds for termination constituted a waiver of his right to contest the adequacy of its reunification efforts. But the court noted there was no binding authority supporting this position. While the DHHS cited the lead opinion in Rood, the court noted stating “that the quality of reunification efforts may bear on whether there is sufficient evidence to terminate a parent’s rights is a far cry from saying that statutory grounds and reasonable efforts are so inextricably linked that one may not concede the former but contest the latter.” The court found that “Rood stands for the proposition that the quality of services offered might sometimes be probative of whether a statutory ground has been established.” The court further determined Fried did “not stand for the proposition for which DHHS cites it. The statutory framework makes clear that the Legislature did not intend for reasonable efforts to be linked to the statutory grounds in the manner suggested by DHHS.” The court concluded the reasonable reunification efforts requirement “is distinct from the requirement that at least one statutory ground for termination of parental rights be established by clear and convincing evidence.” it next found that the “DHHS flouted its statutory obligations by failing to prepare a written case service plan and to update” it every six months. But while this was error and it was plain, respondent was not entitled to relief because the DHHS offered him “significant services and made adequate efforts toward reunification; however, [he] was chronically noncompliant and wholly failed to benefit from the services offered.” As a result, he could not show “he would have successfully attained reunification if a proper case service plan had been prepared and regularly updated.”