Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re White; In re Olive/Metts; Reasonable reunification efforts; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); In re Hicks/Brown; In re Sanborn; Children’s best interests; Neighborhood Service Organization (NSO); Detroit-Wayne Integrated Health Network (DWN); Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP)

The court concluded that respondent-mother was not entitled to relief based on her reunification efforts argument and that terminating her parental rights under § (j) was proper. Further, the record supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. It noted that, when “uncontested evidence establishes that a respondent-parent has a disability, trial courts should err on the side of caution by ensuring that services are provided in accordance with” the ADA and Hicks/Brown to accommodate the disability. But even if respondent was “considered disabled under the ADA, she is required to specify what services would have accommodated her needs.” She did not “avail herself of the many services, standard and specialized, she was offered throughout the proceedings. Specifically, respondent did not follow through with referrals to NSO, which is for individuals with disabilities, or for services through DWN. DHHS could not force [her] to take advantage of the services it offered specifically in response to her mental health diagnoses. The trial court noted respondent’s refusal to comply with or benefit from services does not mean she has a disability and concluded” Hicks/Brown did “not apply. But DHHS’s offer of specialized referrals demonstrated an attempt to accommodate respondent which was declined.” In addition, she could not “establish a violation because she did not specify services that would have allowed her to fare better.” The court next held that termination under § (j) was supported by respondent’s failure “to comply with her PATP,” and the risk of harm to the children if they returned to her care given her refusal “to address her mental health ailments[.]” Finally, as to the children’s best interests, they were “bonded with their caregivers, who provide stability and care and are willing to adopt, and respondent has not demonstrated strong parenting abilities or a desire to improve them.”