Reasonable reunification efforts; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 712A.19a(2)(a); “Child abuse” (MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii)); Effect of a respondent’s mental health issues; The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Suspension of parenting time under MCL 712A.13a(13); Children’s best interests; In re White

The court held that reasonable reunification efforts were not required under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a) in this case due to the existence of aggravated circumstances. And even if they were, “the trial court did not clearly err in finding” that they were made. It also found no error in the trial court’s suspension of both respondents’ parenting time under MCL 712A.13a(13), and concluded that it did not clearly err by finding termination was in the children’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the orders terminating their parental rights to their children. The DHHS sought termination of their “rights at the initial disposition under MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(iii) for child abuse. The termination petition alleged respondents used a belt and a cord to whip the children on multiple occasions, with respondent-father admitting he most recently struck [one child] with a belt 16 times. Medical examinations revealed both children had numerous loop marks on their bodies in various stages of healing, along with long-lasting scars. Respondents pleaded no contest to these allegations, agreeing to their use for establishing the factual basis of their pleas.” Further, the trial court found proven statutory grounds for termination under § (k)(iii), “which amounts to a ‘judicial determination’ that respondents subjected the children to an aggravated circumstance under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii).” The court added that, despite “concluding that reasonable efforts were not required, the trial court repeatedly ordered DHHS to provide services at respondents’ request[.]” A caseworker (M) “testified that she would have provided service referrals, but respondents never asked. When [they] expressed concerns regarding transportation to parenting time, they were provided with gas cards, offered bus passes, and given the location of every free charging location in the area” for their electric car. M offered to refer the father “to an approved therapist, but [he] refused her offer. The trial court’s finding that reasonable efforts were made was not clearly erroneous.” As to his ADA argument, he “never asserted below that he needed ADA accommodations[.]” As to the children’s best interests, the record supported the trial court’s “conclusion that respondents traumatized” them and were not able to provide them permanency and stability, while the foster parents wanted to adopt them and would continue their therapy.