Reasonable reunification efforts; Accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA); Waived issue; Abandoned issue; Parenting time modification; MCL 712A.13a(13); In re Ott; Child’s best interests; In re Gonzalez/Martinez

Holding that reasonable reunification efforts were made, and that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, the court affirmed. She primarily contended that reversal was required because she was not given reasonable accommodations under the ADA based on her mental health issues. However, the referee specifically asked the parties, “‘do all parties agree that ADA does not apply?’ Respondent’s attorney expressly answered, ‘Yes.”’ Her “intent to waive any claim for accommodation under the ADA could not have been clearer, and this argument is thus waived for appellate review. Moreover, ’when challenging the services offered, [respondent] must establish that she would have fared better if other services had been offered’ because ‘[w]ithout an identification of services to accommodate mother’s intellectual disability, we are left to speculate what other services the DHHS could have offered.’” She had “not explained how she would have fared better if other services had been offered, nor has she proposed other services that should have been offered; she merely complains in conclusory fashion that the services offered were deficient.” Thus, she failed to establish that reversal was required on this basis. Respondent additionally asserted “that she should have been given more time to work toward completing her parent-agency treatment plan.” However, she ignored “her own failures to engage with many of the services that were referred, her failure to obtain and provide her insurance card that prevented therapeutic services from starting, and her failure to demonstrate that she had sufficiently benefited from services thus far.” The court next noted that respondent “failed to cite any authority prohibiting the imposition of conditions on parenting time generally,” or any authority supporting “that the trial court erred by mposing remote parenting time in light of [her] behavior at the conclusion of a parenting time visit that led to the involvement of security. Therefore, this issue is abandoned.” Finally, based on its review of the record, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake by finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.”