Reasonable reunification efforts; Incarcerated parent; In re Dixon (On Reconsideration); Case service plan; In re Matamoros; Meaningful opportunity to comply; In re Mason; Plain error; In re Berryman/Hurd/Morgan/Morgan-Hurd

The court held that respondent-father failed to show error in the trial court’s determination that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts before termination of his parental rights. The trial court took jurisdiction after respondent’s whereabouts were unknown, he had no significant contact with the child, and the DHHS could not locate him despite following its “absent parent protocol.” Respondent was later arrested, jailed, and then imprisoned. His only appellate challenge concerned reasonable efforts while incarcerated. On appeal, the court first noted that imprisonment alone does not eliminate the DHHS’s duty to make reasonable efforts because “[t]he mere fact of imprisonment is not one of” the statutory exceptions. But the court held that the record “belies” respondent’s claim that little was done because of his incarceration. While he was jailed, the caseworker mailed him case documents, discussed the case with him in person and by phone, contacted the jail about available services, enrolled him in parenting classes, provided a parenting workbook that he “never completed and returned,” and arranged video parenting-time visits. After respondent was transferred to prison, the caseworker mailed additional documents, contacted the prison about services, and recommended substance-abuse treatment, therapy, and cognitive intervention. She also spoke with his therapist, communicated with respondent by phone, video, and in person, and arranged weekly phone calls with the child when prison video visits were not approved. The court concluded that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to give respondent “a meaningful opportunity to participate in the services available to him,” and he did not identify additional services the DHHS could reasonably have provided. Affirmed.