Reasonable reunification efforts; Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i)

The court held that (1) the trial court did not err in finding that DHHS “made reasonable efforts toward reunification even though respondent[-father] did not participate in those services[”] and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence supported § (c)(i) for termination. The reunification services offered to him “were minimal because the Arkansas prison system was uncooperative with [DHHS’s] efforts to allow virtual parenting time and it did not offer any parenting classes or other services.” Thus, DHHS’s “efforts toward reunification were limited to mailing defendant educational materials about parenting, anger management, and substance abuse. [DHHS] also investigated two possible relative placements for the child while respondent was imprisoned, but the relative placements were not suitable due to factors outside of petitioner’s control.” Respondent argued that DHHS’s “reasonable efforts toward reunification should have included waiting for [his] release and return to Michigan so that [he] could more fully engage with reunification services. However, it was not reasonable to continue waiting under the circumstances given that the child had been in foster care for more than half of her life (839 days).” Further, respondent “did not fully participate in the reunification services that he was offered because, even after being told that he needed to complete and return the educational materials, he failed to do so. ‘In addition to DHHS’s duty to offer services to the respondent-parent, the respondent-parent has a duty to participate in and benefit from the services.’” As to § (c)(i), respondent argued “that he would have overcome the barriers to reunification within a reasonable time because respondent was likely to be released from prison in less than 45 days and could have demonstrated progress if given another 30 to 60 days to obtain in-person services.” However, his “lack of parenting skills and anger management issues remained unaddressed due to his nonparticipation in reunification services. [His] failure to provide care, supervision, or a viable care plan for the child was also unaddressed. Respondent was still incarcerated without a set release date, had no stable housing upon his release, and had offered no viable alternative placement for the child.” The child “had already been in foster care for 839 days and would have had to wait an additional indeterminate amount of time for respondent to address the issues that led to her removal.” Affirmed.