Reasonable reunification efforts; Failure to timely provide updated case-service plans; MCL 712A.18f(2) & (5); Plain error review; Whether respondent’s substantial rights were affected; In re MJC

The court held that while respondent-mother established plain error as to the DHHS’s “failure to update her case-service plan as required by statute, she” was not entitled to reversal of the termination order because she did “not show that her substantial rights were affected.” As an initial matter, the court determined that her “untimely objection to the failure to provide an updated plan” rendered the issue unpreserved and thus, subject to plain error review. It agreed with her “that the first two criteria of the plain-error analysis” were met. The DHHS filed its initial case-service plan in 12/22. The referee adopted the proposed plan the next month. MCL 712A.18f(5) then required the DHHS “to update its plan every 90 days. Yet, [it] did not file another service or treatment plan until” the middle of 2/24, when “it filed three service plans, dated in June, August, and November 2023, respectively, and three treatment plans with the same dates. Thus, given the time of filing, [it] did not make these plans available to the trial court at the time they were prepared. Further, even if [it] had filed these plans when they were prepared, the earliest case-service plan still would fall outside the 90-day statutory deadline.” But the court found that respondent’s challenge failed because she did not establish “that the failure to provide updated case-service plans affected her substantial rights.” Similarly to MJC, she did “not show that she benefited from, or substantially complied with, the services” the DHHS provided. Like the respondent in that case, “who ‘repeatedly missed drug screens, . . . failed to maintain contact with his caseworker, and missed several parenting time sessions,’” respondent in this case “attended only a few of her weekly drug screens and tested positive for cocaine multiple times. She also missed the majority of her parenting time sessions. Further, she did not contact her caseworker for weeks at a time, and she did not allow her caseworker to complete a home assessment.” Given that she failed to “participate in, or benefit from, the services” the DHHS provided to “her, she did not establish any prejudice to her substantial rights from [its] failure to file an updated case-service plan on a 90-day basis.” The court affirmed the order terminating her parental rights.