In re Hicks, 315 Mich. App. 251

Respondent mother has documented cognitive impairment (FSIQ ~70, extremely low verbal comprehension) and limited adaptive functioning; CPS had prior involvement with her family.
Her infant daughter was taken into DHHS custody in April 2012 after respondent reported impending homelessness; her newborn son was taken into care in February 2013.
DHHS did not produce a case service plan until January 2013 (10 months after daughter’s removal) and did not obtain psychological testing until May 2013.
The service plan required GED, employment, housing, parenting classes, and therapy but did not meaningfully tailor or provide specialized, wraparound services for cognitive impairment recommended by the psychologist.
Over three years of proceedings, DHHS failed to secure or coordinate intensive services for developmentally disabled parents (NSO referrals delayed/denied); parenting time and hands-on assistance were sporadic or absent.
The circuit court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, finding DHHS failed to provide reasonable accommodations/efforts and evidentiary support for termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHS made "reasonable efforts" to reunify given respondent's cognitive impairment	DHHS failed to tailor services, delayed evaluations, and did not provide specialized wraparound services; therefore not reasonable	DHHS provided parenting classes, therapy, and referrals generally available and complied with requirements	Court: DHHS failed; services were not individualized or timely; reasonable efforts lacking
Whether ADA/Rehabilitation Act accommodations were preserved (waiver)	Counsel repeatedly requested specialized services from Jan–Aug 2014; ADA-based challenge timely	DHHS argued objections came too late and should be waived per precedent	Court: preserved — objections were timely enough; waiver doctrine did not preclude review
Whether evidence supported statutory grounds for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3))	DHHS: respondent did not remedy conditions, failed GED, housing, employment; children in care long enough	Respondent: lack of benefit reflected inadequate, non‑accommodating services; termination unsupported without reasonable accommodations	Court: termination unsupported because underlying reasonable‑efforts deficiency undermines clear and convincing proof
Appropriate remedy/remand scope	Respondent seeks vacatur and remand for provision of reasonable accommodations and reevaluation	DHHS sought affirmance of termination	Court: vacated termination and remanded for provision of accommodated services and further proceedings

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (establishes parental liberty interest and clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (historical reference on institutional treatment of the mentally incompetent)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (Mich.) (case‑service plan is vehicle for reasonable‑efforts determination)
In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (Mich.) (lack of investigation/services leaves evidentiary "hole")
In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (Mich. Ct. App.) (ADA requires reasonable accommodations; failure undermines finding of reasonable efforts)
In re Boursaw, 239 Mich. App. 161 (Mich. Ct. App.) (termination premature where intensive treatment might enable parenting)
In re Victoria M., 207 Cal. App. 3d 1317 (Cal. Ct. App.) (DSS’s failure to accommodate developmentally disabled mother undermined termination)