Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Rippy; Disability accommodations; In re Hicks/Brown; Children’s best interests

The court held that: (1) the DHHS provide reasonable reunification efforts for respondent-father; (2) § (c)(i) was met; and (3) termination of respondents-parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Their rights were terminated primarily on the basis of abuse and unsanitary living conditions. On appeal, the court rejected the father’s argument that the DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children because it failed to reasonably accommodate his disabilities. First, the foster-care worker (L) “neither ignored nor deemed” the psychologist’s (K) “recommendation to be wrong—she accurately reported [K’s] findings to the” trial court, which ordered the DHHS to provide reasonable accommodations. Another problem was that neither K nor anyone else said that the father’s “lackluster participation” in K’s tests prevented him from making a proper evaluation. This “foundationless assertion” was not enough to establish error. Further, while the record does establish that he had seizures, he “never stated that his seizures affected his ability to exercise parenting time.” The court next rejected both respondents’ argument that a statutory ground was not met, noting (c)(i) was met. As to the father, his “unwillingness or inability to protect the children and care for their wellbeing is what led to his adjudication, and, by the end of this case, that condition remained.” He also refused to participate in programs, frequently missed parenting, and showed a lack of interest in the children’s well-being. As to respondent-mother, considering she “failed to obtain stable employment throughout nearly two years that this case was pending and still did not have suitable housing by the time of termination,” the court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake by finding that there was no reasonable likelihood that [she] would be able to obtain stable housing and employment within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.” Finally, the court rejected their claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. As to the father, “[t]he trial court thoroughly explained why it found that terminating [his] parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and none of [his] arguments on appeal” persuaded it that this was in error. As to the mother, the court was “not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court made a mistake by finding that terminating [her] parental rights would provide the children with greater permanency and stability.” In addition, the trial court’s ruling “reflects that it carefully considered the pertinent factors, and nothing suggests that it was predisposed to reject the possibility of a guardianship.” In fact, the “record supports that the DHHS repeatedly tried to explore the possibility of a guardianship, but their efforts were stifled by the lack of cooperation by the potential guardians.” Affirmed.