Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) & the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA); “Active efforts” toward reunification; MCL 712B.15(3); In re Beers; Finding that a child would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if returned to respondent’s care; MCR 3.977(G)(2); 25 USC § 1912(f); MCL 712B.15(4)

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding (1) “that the agency made active efforts at reunifying respondent-mother and” her child (E) and (2) “beyond a reasonable doubt that [E] would likely be seriously harmed if left in” her custody. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. The record showed she “began several services in Michigan. When [she] moved to Indiana, caseworkers provided her with information on services” there. The agency provided her “with gas cards to assist with the expense of [her] traveling to Michigan to visit” E. When she “could not travel to Michigan, she visited with [E] remotely. The agency also communicated with [her] caseworkers in Indiana.” A caseworker (G) with the Tribe (and its designated qualified expert witness) “testified that the agency’s services were culturally appropriate, including that the agency had diligently searched for a family placement for [E], and [E’s] placement with a sibling was compliant with the Tribe’s preferences.” Respondent contended “that the services were ‘generic’ and not modified when it became apparent that she was not showing benefit.” But she did not “state what actions could have been taken to help [her] benefit from services. [Her] move to Indiana limited the agency’s ability to monitor and provide services, but the record demonstrates that [it] continued to monitor [her] engagement with services and attempted to coordinate with Indiana caseworkers.” While respondent’s parenting time was limited, the record showed her “long drives from Indiana and other responsibilities made longer or more frequent visits impracticable. The agency was open to longer visits, but continued to supervise visits out of concerns for [E’s] safety, and [she] used a parenting advocate during visits. Despite these services, [she] did not demonstrate much benefit.” As to the finding that the child was likely to suffer serious damage if returned to respondent, “the trial court relied, in part, on [G’s] testimony. Further, [it] identified that respondent[] was in a worse position than she was at the beginning of the proceedings. [She] lacked stable housing and did not benefit from services to address her emotional instability or the termination of her rights to” two other children. The evidence also showed that she “was overwhelmed with her life circumstances, even without [E] in her care.”