In Re Schaefer Minors, 356332

Two special-needs children (RS: Down syndrome and significant feeding/medical needs; DS: PTSD, social/emotional developmental concerns) were removed after respondent’s husband assaulted another child and respondent missed medical appointments and showed unstable mental-health/transportation resources.
DHHS initially provided services; respondent found housing and employment but struggled with transportation and repeatedly missed or did not meaningfully participate in RS’s feeding therapy and other appointments.
The trial court directed DHHS to locate closer feeding therapy; DHHS attempted alternatives (transportation, closer programs, foster parent coaching), but COVID, waitlists, and RS’s medical complications caused delays and regressions.
DHHS filed a second termination petition after ongoing missed appointments, inconsistent participation, and staff testimony that respondent failed to learn or apply feeding and parenting strategies and was unable to manage DS’s behavioral needs.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j), finding DHHS made reasonable efforts, statutory grounds proven (relying on (j)), and termination was in the children’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify	DHHS failed to provide adequate, accessible feeding therapy and other services to give respondent a fair chance	DHHS made reasonable, documented efforts (transportation, closer programs, tutoring by foster parent, many supports); delays were largely out of DHHS’s control	Court: DHHS provided reasonable efforts; finding not clearly erroneous
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (focus on MCL 712A.19b(3)(j))	Termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence; respondent would not intentionally harm children	Respondent’s chronic failure to attend/benefit from services and inability to meet intense medical/therapeutic needs created reasonable likelihood of harm if children returned	Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (j); affirmed
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Termination was unnecessary; respondent loved children and sought services	Children need permanency/stability; foster home meets their high needs; respondent did not benefit from services and could not provide safe, consistent care	Court: Preponderance of evidence supports termination as being in children’s best interests

In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (2011) (standard of review for termination findings)
In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich. 79 (2017) (reasonable-efforts requirement except in aggravated circumstances)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (failure to provide services can render termination premature)
In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (2000) (agency not required to provide every conceivable service)
In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (2014) (parent’s duty to cooperate and benefit from services)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (need to address at least one valid statutory ground)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (failure to benefit from services supports termination under (j))
In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (emotional harm can support termination under (j))
In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich. App. 713 (2014) (best-interest factors and standard)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (best-interests must be determined for each child individually)