Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Mason; The DHHS’s statutory duty to create & update a case service plan (CSP); Parent Agency Treatment Plans (PATPs)

Holding that the trial court clearly erred in determining that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts in this case, the court reversed the order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights and remanded. There was “no record evidence that the DHHS even attempted to facilitate or coordinate services with the federal prison” where he was incarcerated. While “no Michigan case requires the DHHS to provide services directly to respondent, failure to provide direct services is evidence that the DHHS did not make reasonable efforts.” The record did not indicate that it provided “services directly to respondent. In fact, a DHHS foster-care specialist affirmed that she did not send [him] workbooks, supplements, or packets regarding parenting skills because of her belief that [he] was not eligible for additional services until he was a full participant in the drug-related program offered by the prison.” In addition, the DHHS failed to “outline what services would be ‘provided’ to respondent,” or what steps it “would take to facilitate reunification in either the” PATPs or CSPs. The court further found that, “in practice, the DHHS did not ‘provide services necessary for [respondent] to be reunified with his child[].’” After he was moved to his current facility, the DHHS contacted his “prison case manager by phone, and the prison case manager spoke freely about respondent. However, even in those phone contacts, the DHHS showed no effort to coordinate services. Instead, [it] called only to verify what respondent had been able to accomplish.” Here, as in Mason, the record was “‘largely undeveloped’ because of the DHHS’s failure to provide respondent with the services necessary to achieve reunification.” Thus, it was unclear how he “was expected to achieve the steps necessary for reunification while waitlisted for federal prison services and when provided no additional services by the DHHS.” Given that the DHHS did not provide him “with the services necessary for reunification, it did not fulfill its statutory duty.” As a result, the trial court clearly erred in terminating his “parental rights for failure to comply with the service plan when the DHHS failed to provide the necessary services for reunification.”