in Re townsend/loucks Minors, 331686

Background

DHHS had a long history with respondent-mother from 2007–2015 with 26 referrals for abuse/neglect and multiple offered services; prior voluntary relinquishment of one child in 2005.
In Sept. 2015 caseworkers found the home in uninhabitable condition (filth, broken windows, exposed wiring, unsanitary sleeping areas) and implemented an emergency safety plan. Children were removed that day.
On Sept. 2, 2015, respondent’s oldest son died of an asthma attack; records showed missed prescription refills and lack of preventative medication.
DHHS filed for termination; respondent pleaded no contest to jurisdictional and statutory grounds (MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (m)). Termination was sought early and DHHS’s goal at disposition was termination.
At the best-interest hearing, evidence showed the children (all under 10 and with special needs) were thriving in relative placements; respondent had declined or failed to benefit from repeated services and admitted she was not able to safely parent for at least a year.

Issues

Issue	Respondent's Argument	DHHS's Argument	Held
Adequacy of services / ADA accommodations	Respondent argued DHHS failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her alleged mental/learning disabilities and thus failed due process	DHHS argued respondent never timely raised ADA accommodations, had been offered intensive services historically, and often declined participation	Court: Issue untimely/waived; respondent may not raise adequacy of services on appeal because she failed to timely request accommodations and pleaded no contest to grounds
Preservation / effect of no-contest plea	Respondent maintained she could challenge services and accommodations on appeal	DHHS contended a no-contest plea waives challenges to sufficiency of evidence and reasonable-efforts claims	Court: No-contest plea waived challenge to sufficiency of evidence/reasonableness of services
Obligation to provide reunification services when termination is the goal	Respondent argued she was entitled to more or different services given limitations	DHHS noted when termination is the agency’s goal at disposition, it is not required to provide reunification services; it had already provided extensive services over years	Court: DHHS was not required to provide additional reunification services where termination was the goal; record showed extensive prior efforts and respondent’s nonparticipation
Best interests / need for more time	Respondent argued court erred and should have given her additional time to reunify	DHHS pointed to children’s special needs, stable placements, respondent’s lack of insight, poor judgment, unstable finances, and history of inadequate parenting	Court: Termination was in children’s best interests—trial court did not clearly err given safety concerns, need for permanency for special-needs children, and respondent’s history

Key Cases Cited

In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (2000) (ADA requires reasonable accommodations by agency; objections must be timely)
In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (2012) (need for accommodation must be asserted when service plan is adopted; failure to object preserves nothing)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (DHHS not required to provide reunification services when termination is the agency’s goal)
In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (2005) (reasonableness of services affects evidentiary support for termination)
In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (no-contest plea waives sufficiency challenges to termination evidence)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (best-interest standard: preponderance of evidence)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (factors for best-interest determination include bond, parenting ability, child’s need for permanency)