In Re L a Tokarski Minor, 357140

Background:

DHHS petitioned to remove LAT after respondent admitted a long history of substance abuse (15 years), an incident involving a 4-day heroin/crack bender while LAT was with her, cigarette burns on LAT, missed immunizations, and homelessness; trial court took jurisdiction.
Initial dispositional order entered June 22, 2020; case plan required psychological evaluation, substance-abuse treatment, random drug testing, parent education, and housing help.
Respondent repeatedly tested positive for drugs before and after a September–December 2020 jail stay; services were limited by COVID-19 and jail restrictions; she relapsed four days before entering inpatient treatment at Odyssey House.
At termination (April 8, 2021) respondent had been in Odyssey House ~2 months of a 12–18 month program; she historically stayed sober in controlled settings but relapsed after release.
Referee/trial court found statutory grounds to terminate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and found termination was in LAT’s best interests; respondent appealed arguing insufficient time/services and a failure to accommodate a disability.
Court of Appeals affirmed: (c)(i) satisfied (conditions persisted and no reasonable likelihood of rectification within a child-appropriate time), services were adequate/unpreserved as an objection, ADA claim failed for lack of proof, and termination was in the child’s best interests.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS)	Defendant's Argument (Tokarski)	Held
Whether statutory ground under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) was met (conditions continue and no reasonable likelihood of rectification within a reasonable time)	Respondent’s long history of substance abuse persisted (multiple positive tests); >182 days elapsed since disposition; she was only early in a long inpatient program and had a pattern of relapsing after treatment	Needed more time to benefit from treatment; COVID-19 delayed services	Affirmed: (c)(i) satisfied — substance abuse persisted and unlikely to be rectified within a child-appropriate time
Whether respondent received reasonable services / enough time to benefit	DHHS provided referrals and programs; respondent failed to benefit and repeatedly tested positive	Services insufficient; COVID limited access and more time required	Issue not preserved below; reviewed for plain error and rejected — no prejudice shown; services were reasonable and respondent didn’t benefit
Whether DHHS failed to accommodate a disability under the ADA	DHHS cannot accommodate an unknown disability; respondent gave no proof of a disability or how accommodations would change outcome	Trial court should have inquired about disability and provided specialized services	Rejected: respondent produced no evidence of a disability or that tailored services would have helped; DHHS not required to accommodate an unproven disability
Whether termination was in LAT’s best interests	LAT needed permanency and stability; respondent had minimal parenting during visits and a history of relapse; long treatment timeline left	Strong bond existed; respondent should be allowed time or to parent while in treatment	Affirmed: clear-error standard not met — child’s need for stability and respondent’s inability to provide permanency supported termination

Key Cases Cited

In re TK, 306 Mich App 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (preservation rules for statutory-ground issues)
In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for termination ground under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i))
In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (clear-error standard for termination findings)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (plain-error review for unpreserved issues)
In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (three-part plain-error test to avoid forfeiture)
In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (preservation of reasonable-efforts claims; only one statutory ground required for termination)
In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich 79 (Mich. 2017) (DHHS duty under ADA to accommodate known disabilities)
In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (claim of insufficient services requires showing one would have fared better with different services)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (best-interest factors to consider)