Reasonable reunification efforts; Reasonable accommodations to a disabled parent; In re Hicks/Brown; The Americans with Disabilities Act; Child’s best interests; In re White; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Guardianship alternative; MCL 712A.19a(9); In re Rippy; Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

The court concluded respondent-father failed to show the DHHS did not accommodate his dyslexia, and that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. It also held that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that terminating his parental rights was in his child’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. The father did not inform the DHHS or the trial court “he has dyslexia or indicate that his dyslexia required accommodations” until his psychological evaluation in 9/22, which was filed with the trial court three months later. The court noted he could have indicated he had this condition “over the two years in which he participated in this case, but chose not to do so. Regardless,” the court found that the record showed the DHHS provided him “with reasonable accommodations for his learning disorder once it became aware of his condition. The psychological evaluation indicated that as soon as [he] reported that he was dyslexic, the psychologist administered all of the psychological tests verbally so that father could complete them. At the termination hearing, a caseworker testified that she was eventually made aware of father’s dyslexia, so she ensured that information regarding services was provided to him both in writing and verbally. [She] further testified that she verbally spoke to [him] about all of the offered services and verbally reviewed the case service plan with him at least once per month.” In addition, the record was “replete with evidence that DHHS provided [him] a multitude of services to address his primary barriers to reunification, including substance abuse and mental health. Despite several referrals to substance abuse services, [he] refused to participate in them. [He] did not complete most of his mandatory drug screens for the first three reporting periods, and” those he completed were positive for amphetamines, meth, THC, “or a combination of the three.” In addition, he “admitted he did not participate in any of the recommended mental health services throughout the case and still was not participating in any substance abuse treatment or mental health counseling at the time of the termination hearing.” As to the child’s best interests, the court found no error in the trial court’s finding given the “father’s issues with substance abuse and mental health, and [the child’s] young age and need for permanency and stability[.]”