Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; Child’s best interests; Relative placement

The court affirmed the trial court’s reasonable-efforts finding, but vacated the termination order and remanded because the trial court failed to consider the child’s (ES) placement with a relative when deciding whether termination was in her best interests. Respondent-mother argued that "the DHHS failed to reasonably accommodate [her] cognitive disability.” The court found that the DHHS was aware of her "cognitive disability and took steps to accommodate it.” The record established that it regularly reminded her “of upcoming appointments and parenting times, marked the relevant events on calendars, and provided all explanations in plain language, ensuring that respondent was able to understand. This Court has previously held that similar practices reasonably accommodate a parent with a cognitive disability.” The record also showed “that the DHHS intended to further tailor respondent’s service plan to accommodate her cognitive disability after receiving the results of her psychological evaluation, but its efforts were stymied by respondent’s refusal to complete the evaluation.” The court noted that she “was unable to complete her first psychological evaluation due to internet-connectivity issues; she did not reschedule the appointment, prompting the DHHS to schedule an in-person evaluation on her behalf; and while respondent attended this evaluation, she refused to complete it because she felt disrespected by the psychologist and did not believe that the evaluation was necessary. This encapsulates the root of the problem in this case—the DHHS upheld its duty to offer respondent services that reasonably accommodated her cognitive disability, but respondent failed to uphold her commensurate responsibility to comply with the services offered.” Thus, the trial court “did not err, let alone plainly err, when it found that the DHHS made reasonable efforts.”