Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Due process; Updated case service plan; Reasonable reunification efforts

The court concluded that respondent-mother had “not established that she would have successfully reunified with her children if the case service plan had been updated as mandated and she is not entitled to relief.” Also, the trial court did not clearly err in holding that DHHS made reasonable efforts to assist her “in addressing the barriers to reunification with her children before terminating her parental rights.” She argued “that she was deprived of due process because she was not provided with an updated case service plan.” The court found that “DHHS’s failure to provide an updated case service plan every 90 days was a clear error because it did not comply with the requirements of MCL 712A.18f(5).” But it determined that “this failure did not prejudice respondent or affect the outcome of this case.” It held that “DHHS provided services for respondent and made efforts to reunite her with her children. Respondent was aware of the requirements of the case service plan; however, she denied any need for assistance with her substance use or mental health, was essentially noncompliant with them, and expressed that they were too much for her.” Thus, her “right to due process was not violated because she had notice of what actions were necessary to prevent termination of her parental rights.” And “despite DHHS offering significant services and making reasonable efforts toward reunification, respondent was noncompliant and failed to benefit from the services offered.” Finally, she also argued that the trial court erred in finding that DHHS “had made reasonable efforts at reunification because it failed to update her case service plan.” In sum, the record showed “that DHHS made reasonable efforts to rectify respondent’s barriers to reunification, but respondent failed to participate in and benefit from the services offered. Although DHHS committed a clear error in failing to continue to update [her] case service plan, [she] failed to establish that she was prejudiced. Further, [she] failed to identify what alternative services could have been provided or how she would have fared better had they been offered.” Affirmed.