Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Williams; Reasonable reunification efforts; Accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); In re Sanborn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make futile arguments; Due process claims related to adjournments; MCR 3.923(G); Good cause; Child’s best interests; Effect of relative placement; Advice as to appellate rights; Plain error review; Parent-Agency Treatment Plan (PATP); Community Mental Health (CMH)

The court held that the trial court did not plainly err in finding the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, including accommodations for respondent-mother’s cognitive conditions. It rejected her ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and found the trial court did not violate her due process rights related to its adjournment decisions. 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. While the trial court plainly erred in inaccurately advising her of her appellate rights, she could not show how this affected her substantial rights. Thus, the court affirmed the termination order. As to reunification efforts, the record indicated the DHHS “was aware of respondent’s intellectual functioning following her psychological assessment.” And the evidence showed it “took the recommendations from the psychological evaluation and implemented them in the service plan. Specifically, respondent was provided a written summary to explain the [PATP], respondent’s parenting education classes adopted accommodations to educate [her] in a simple and clear format, and [she] was referred to employment service providers who could find her a job suited to her capabilities.” But she failed to take advantage of the accommodations. The court also noted that she did not “provide any alternative services that would have helped her to progress toward reunification.” As to § (c)(i), well over 182 “days had passed since the adjudication before the termination hearing[.]” The caseworker “testified that the ongoing barriers toward reunification included respondent’s substance use, homelessness, employment, and domestic violence issues with [the] father.” Substance abuse was cited as the most substantial issue leading to the adjudication. The court found that the DHHS provided “ample services” specifically to address this issue, including “CMH services that involved case management and medication management assistance, a psychological evaluation, drug screenings, and an inpatient drug rehabilitation program.” While she completed the inpatient program, any progress she “made with her treatment was lost as she continued to test positive for meth[] after the program was completed.” She tested positive for meth 72 times during the proceedings.