Termination under § 19b(3)(j); Reasonable reunification efforts; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations; In re Hicks/Brown; Due process; In re Ferranti; Best interests; Relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors

The court held that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-mother with the children, that § (j) was proven, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The children were removed after two-month-old MB suffered broken bones caused by his father. Respondent had a CPS history, and she had recently pled guilty to fourth-degree child abuse involving the other child, HM. The trial court took jurisdiction after respondent’s plea and ordered services addressing parenting, mental health, dyslexia, and her seizure disorder. It later changed the goal to adoption after respondent’s parenting time returned to supervised status and the DHHS alleged that she had not benefited from services. On appeal, the court held that respondent’s ADA-based reasonable-efforts claim was unpreserved and failed because the record showed the DHHS “tried to accommodate respondent,” gave her “the necessary referrals,” and repeatedly instructed her to seek neurological treatment, attend therapy, and take prescribed medication, yet she “failed to do so.” The court also held that respondent “failed to uphold her ‘commensurate responsibility’ to engage in and benefit from the services offered.” There was also “no indication that she would have fared better if DHHS had offered other services or accommodations.” Turning to statutory grounds, the court held that termination was proper under § (j) because respondent “did not substantially comply with her case service plan,” there were “serious concerns that she would be unable to care for the children’s needs,” and “there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would experience physical, mental, or emotional harm if returned to respondent.” Finally, the trial court considered the children’s relative placements, and it did not err in finding that termination would provide the “permanency, stability, and finality they desperately required.” Affirmed.