Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Atchley; A parent’s responsibility to participate & benefit from services; Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); 42 USC § 12132; In re Hicks/Brown; Ineffective assistance of counsel in child protective proceedings; In re Williams; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Parent-child bond; In re Pederson

Holding that: (1) DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, (2) respondent-mother’s trial counsel was not ineffective, (3) § (j) was met, and (4) termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of her parental rights. Her rights were terminated on the basis of unsuitable housing and improper supervision. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to facilitate reunification. “While mother failed to provide DHHS medical documentation confirming an alleged disability, DHHS nonetheless took steps to accommodate [her] as best it could.” In addition, there was “no indication that mother was cognitively impaired or had significant mental health concerns.” And the record showed that “DHHS provided services that comported with the recommendations in [her] psychological evaluation, which” showed it was responsive to her needs. In short, respondent “failed to uphold her ‘commensurate responsibility’ to engage in and benefit from the services offered by DHHS.” And contrary to her “arguments on appeal, there [was] no indication that she would have fared better if DHHS had offered other services or accommodations to assist her.” The court also rejected her claim that her trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request ADA accommodations and by failing to ensure that DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification. Because there was no indication she provided medical documentation of her disability or need for accommodations to her trial counsel, she “failed to establish the factual predicate for her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” And her “trial counsel made a concerted effort to ensure that DHHS took steps to accommodate” her. The court next rejected her contention that a statutory ground for termination was not met, noting that, under § (j), there was “a reasonable likelihood that the children would experience harm if returned to” the home. The court also rejected her claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. “To the extent that mother and the children were bonded, the bond was not healthy for the children.” In addition, they “required permanency and stability, and were reportedly thriving in foster care.” It was also “unclear how mother, who did not seek to understand the children’s needs, would provide appropriate” care, or how she would ensure they “attended school and medical appointments.” Safety and housing also remained concerns.