in Re a M Ray Minor, 336064

DHHS petitioned June 2015 after a newborn tested positive for marijuana and parents said they did not want the child; child placed with maternal grandmother and later remained in her care.
Father admitted prior drug use, had longstanding mental-health issues, intermittent participation in services, and periods of incarceration; he pleaded to basic allegations at adjudication and initially waived counsel.
Case plan referrals: psychological evaluation, counseling, substance-abuse evaluation and random screens, housing and employment assistance; father largely failed to engage early and thereafter relapsed (positive cocaine tests in Aug and Sept 2016).
After relapse and probation violation, father entered a court-ordered rehab program in Oct 2016; DHHS filed a supplemental petition to terminate parental rights in Oct 2016.
Trial court terminated father’s rights Nov 21, 2016 under MCL 712A.19b(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j); father appealed asserting due-process violations, inadequate services, error in statutory findings, and best-interests error.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether court violated due process by not appointing counsel sua sponte at outset	Court should have appointed counsel without father’s request	Father was informed repeatedly and voluntarily waived; court not required to appoint on its own	Court: No violation; waiver was knowing and counsel later appointed when requested
Whether denial of adjournment/telephonic participation violated due process	Father needed in-person presence to consult with counsel and meaningfully participate	Telephonic participation can satisfy due process; father gave no specific prejudice showing	Court: No due-process violation; no showing that in-person presence would have changed outcome
Whether DHHS provided reasonable reunification services (first 7 months)	DHHS failed to provide reasonable assistance given father’s mental-health needs and incarceration	DHHS made appropriate referrals, maintained contact, and provided jail visits; father largely failed to participate	Court: DHHS provided reasonable services under the circumstances
Whether statutory grounds and best interests supported termination	Father argued insufficiency of proof and that relative placement favored preserving rights	Evidence of continued substance abuse, untreated disorders, lack of progress, child’s need for permanency, and relative willing to adopt	Court: Clear and convincing proof of at least one statutory ground (c)(i) and termination was in child’s best interests

In re Rood, 483 Mich 73 (due-process and statutory framework in child-protective proceedings)
In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (state duties to engage incarcerated parents)
In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444 (reasonable-efforts/service-plan requirement)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (plain-error review for unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Hall, 188 Mich App 217 (appointment of counsel requires affirmative request by respondent)
In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44 (telephonic participation and incarcerated parents’ presence at dispositional hearings)
In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (clear-error standard for statutory ground for termination)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35 (best-interest factors for termination)