Disability accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Child’s best interests; Relative placement

The court rejected respondent-mother’s claim that the trial court and the DHHS erred by failing to afford her a number of accommodations under the ADA. As to her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it found that she failed to show “a reasonable probability that any of her attorneys’ alleged errors in her case affected the outcome of the proceedings against her.” Finally, the trial court did not err by finding termination was in the child’s best interests. The court found that even if it considered the materials she provided that were outside the record, and assuming that she “demonstrated that she requested certain accommodations from the trial court and” the DHHS, she did not show that the trial court and the DHHS “failed to reasonably accommodate her. Although not every hearing was conducted via teleconferencing software, the record shows that [the mother] was able to attend several hearings remotely.” Further, the record reflected “that an ‘ADA advocate’ and an unspecified support person attended some hearings, indicating that the trial court never prohibited [her] from bringing a support person to hearings.” She was also never “prohibited from taking breaks during proceedings—in fact, the trial court explicitly told her that she could take a break to confer with her attorney during her testimony at the termination hearing.” As to her claim “that she was denied a reasonable accommodation by being asked to attend certain hearings in person rather than via teleconferencing software, the record does not show that [she] framed her requests to attend remotely as a necessary accommodation for a disability.” The larger issue with her “entire accommodations argument is that [she] never identifies any reasonable accommodations that DHHS or the trial court failed to make that would have enabled to her to comply with her case service plan and benefit from the services provided to her.” Whether or not she “was denied reasonable accommodation regarding remote attendance at hearings or the availability of breaks would not appear to have impacted [her] ability to refrain from using illegal drugs, which the record shows was the primary condition that led to adjudication and, overwhelmingly, the condition that led to termination.” The mother failed to show “that any failure on the part of DHHS or the trial court to provide the accommodations she requested (assuming for the sake of argument that they were clearly and timely requested) had any impact on her ability to access and benefit from services aimed at helping her attain and maintain sobriety.” The court found “no plain error requiring reversal on this issue.” Affirmed.