Termination of parental rights; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re MJC; Service plan; In re Atchley; A parent’s responsibility to engage in the services offered; Child’s best interests; Parent-child bond; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Holding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, and that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed the trial court’s termination order. Her rights were terminated on the basis of substance abuse, physical abuse, and neglect. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the DHHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. “The DHHS updated the case service plan five times over the course of the proceedings, and the trial court repeatedly ordered respondent to comply with and benefit from it. Nevertheless, respondent declined to participate in many of the services offered and failed to complete or benefit from the few she did attend. Her refusal to engage does not negate the DHHS’s reasonable efforts to provide reunification services.” To the extent the trial “court observed that ‘not a lot of steps were made,’ that statement does not amount to a legal finding that the DHHS failed to fulfill” its duties. “Reasonable efforts do not require exhaustive efforts. That additional services might have been available does not mean the services provided were insufficient. At both termination hearings, the trial court found that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and the record supports those findings.” The court also rejected her claim that termination was not in the child’s best interests. Although the trial court acknowledged a strong parent-child bond, “it found that the bond had weakened over time. Respondent’s failure to comply with her case service plan, along with the overall evidence of abuse and neglect, likewise supported termination.” Further, the child “was thriving in his current placement, which provided the permanency, stability, and finality he needed.” And a “juvenile guardianship was not a viable alternative because [the] maternal grandparents were not willing to participate in such an arrangement.” The remaining factors considered by the trial “court, viewed together, supported its conclusion that termination was in” the child’s best interests.