Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch; Reasonable reunification efforts; Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); In re Hicks/Brown; Child’s best interests; In re Simpson; Guardianship consideration; Case service plan (CSP)

The court held that the trial court did not reversibly err in concluding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts and adequately accommodated respondent-father’s disability in doing so. Further, clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § (c)(i), and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that it was in the child’s best interests. The court first determined that “reasonable efforts were made to provide respondent with services that accommodated his cognitive disability.” The disability was known to the DHHS from the inception of the case, and his “CSP was specifically designed with [it] in mind.” The court noted that “he was referred to complete a supportive visitation program a second time after the caseworker and service providers determined that he was still struggling with routine parenting responsibilities and required continued support. [He] was also repeatedly referred to parenting education classes because, even after his completion of them, he continued to struggle with parenting-related tasks and decision-making.” The DHHS provided him additional services “not ordinarily provided to respondent-parents, including assistance with setting up services and scheduling appointments, constant reminders regarding appointments and parenting times, and transportation to and from services, parenting times, and court hearings as needed.” Further, he had over four years to participate in and benefit from services. As to § (c)(i), his primary barrier to reunification was his inability to safely care for the child “without assistance or supervision.” The court found “no reversible error in the [trial] court’s conclusion that this condition continued to exist and that there was no reasonable likelihood that [it] would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” the child’s age. While he participated in and completed services, he still could not show that he could safely care for the child on his own. Also, psychological evaluations and cognitive assessments “taken at different times during the proceedings and after respondent had participated in and completed multiple services, concluded that [he] could not safely care for [the child] for longer periods of time without constant supervision and assistance.” As to the child’s best interests, “the trial court properly weighed all the evidence available to it” and the court saw no reversible error in its findings. Affirmed.