Termination under § (c)(i); Reasonable reunification efforts; American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations; In re Hicks/Brown; A parent’s obligation to engage in the services that are offered; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Parent-child bond; Guardianship; Ineffective assistance of counsel in child-protective proceedings; In re Casto; Adjournment; Good cause; MCR 3.923(G); MCL 712A.17(1); In re Utrera

Holding that the DHHS made reasonable efforts, that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (c)(i), and that termination of respondents-parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The trial court took jurisdiction on the basis that respondents’ “home was unfit for the children due to [their] substance abuse.” On appeal, the court rejected respondents’ argument that the DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, considering “they were both diagnosed with severe opioid use disorder, they suffered from a disability requiring accommodation under the” ADA. It noted the ADA does not cover individuals “‘currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs[.]’” Moreover, the “DHHS provided a multitude of services to address respondents’ substance abuse but [they] simply failed to uphold their ‘commensurate responsibility’ to cooperate with, engage in, and benefit from” the services offered. As to statutory grounds, under § (c)(i), more than 182 days had passed, the conditions that led to adjudication remained, and there was no reasonable likelihood of rectification within a reasonable time given the children’s ages. As to best interests, the trial court’s findings as to “the children’s needs for permanence, stability, and finality . . . were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” And in making its best-interests determination, the trial “court expressly acknowledged the children’s relative placement, but given respondents’ persistent failure to rectify their substance-abuse issues and the lack of safety, stability, and permanency their children faced as a result, [it] ultimately concluded that a guardianship with that relative placement—and the sort of exposure to respondents that the record showed would come with it—would not be appropriate and that termination would be in the children’s best interests.” Their claims of ineffective assistance also failed as they failed to “overcome the heavy burden of showing that their attorneys’ decisions . . . were not the product of objectively reasonable strategy.” Finally, the court upheld the denial of adjournments, noting the case had already been delayed by prior counsel withdrawals and was well past the timing rules. And delay would have undermined the children’s best interests in timely resolution.