in Re Hillsburg Minors
331439
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Mother appealed termination of parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) after children were removed in Jan 2014 and later cared for by grandparents.
- Mother has a documented cognitive impairment (IQ ~58–62; school records and Dr. Auffrey’s March 2014 evaluation) and reported developmental delays.
- DHHS obtained a psychological evaluation early (March 2014) and provided multiple services: parent mentor (twice weekly), infant mental health therapist, parenting classes, and later supports through Developmental Disability Services.
- Service providers adapted strategies after obtaining school records; parent mentor and therapist supervised/attended parenting time and assisted with housing, communication, and employment, but mother did not consistently implement feedback.
- Dr. Auffrey concluded mother functioned at a ~12-year-old level, would need long-term, hands-on assistance to parent safely, and recommended an intensive parent-mentor program that effectively required near-constant support.
- Trial court found DHHS made reasonable accommodations and reasonable reunification efforts; mother did not benefit sufficiently and termination was in the children’s best interests. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (DHHS) Argument | Respondent (Mother) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother waived claim that DHHS failed to provide reasonable ADA accommodations | Claim was not waived because mother voiced concerns about services at a point where accommodations could be made | Mother argued DHHS failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her cognitive impairment | Not waived; Court found mother raised concern timely (Feb 2015) and review/termination had not been filed such that accommodations could not be made |
| Whether DHHS provided reasonable accommodations and reasonable reunification efforts under ADA and juvenile code | DHHS promptly obtained evaluation, provided multiple tailored services and adjusted methods after learning of impairment; extraordinary, full-time assistance was not required | Mother argued services were insufficiently tailored and lacked the intensive, long-term hands-on assistance recommended by her psychologist | DHHS’s efforts were reasonable; ADA does not require full-time/live-in assistance; termination appropriate when parent fails to benefit despite reasonable accommodations |
| Whether mother benefited from services such that children could be returned | DHHS maintained services were available and adapted; mother failed to follow through on housing and did not implement coaching during parenting time | Mother contended she could parent with better accommodations | Held mother did not derive sufficient benefit; continued supervised-only capacity and family dynamics made reunification unsafe |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests given family placement with grandparents | DHHS argued children were thriving with relatives and mother’s presence disrupted their stability | Mother argued family placement should weigh against termination | Trial court’s best-interest finding was not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hicks/Brown, 315 Mich. App. 251 (clarifies duties to evaluate and reasonably accommodate parents with cognitive impairments)
- In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (ADA requires reasonable accommodations by public agencies; claim must be raised timely)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (termination may proceed when parent fails to benefit from reasonable accommodations)
- In re Gazella, 264 Mich. App. 668 (mere participation in services is insufficient; parent must benefit)
- In re Boursaw, 239 Mich. App. 161 (reunification goal must be balanced against avoiding indefinite delays that harm children)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (standard of review for best-interest findings)