The trial court improperly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because the Department of Health and Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with her children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

In In re Bartlett, Minors (Docket No. 363351), the Genesee County Circuit Court terminated the respondent’s parental rights to her children, finding the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (the DHHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and the statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j) were satisfied.

On appeal, the respondent argued the DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family because the agency did not provide her any referrals for mental health services, which had been recommended after her psychological evaluation. She also maintained that, had these referrals been made, she would have “fared better.”

The Court of Appeals agreed with the respondent and reversed the trial court’s decision.

Because the respondent “identified the services that DHHS should have provided to accommodate her needs, … and demonstrated that she would have fared better if DHHS had offered these services, respondent has established that DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family,” the Court of Appeals held.

Judges Colleen A. O’Brien, Christopher M. Murray and Anica Letica were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion.

Background

In October 2019, the DHHS filed a petition seeking jurisdiction over XB and KB, naming their father as a respondent. In January 2021, the DHHS filed additional petitions naming the respondent-mother and adding the respondent’s third child, BB, to the petition. The petitions alleged the children should be removed from the home because of the respondent’s substance abuse, domestic violence between the respondent and her live-in partner, and possible sexual abuse of one of the children by the respondent’s live-in partner.

The trial court ordered the respondent to follow her case service plan, which included referrals to various services, but did not include mental health services or referrals. Several times during the ongoing hearings, the respondent’s attorney asked that referrals be made and objected to a goal change from reunification to adoption because of the lack of these services. During one hearing, the respondent said she was engaged in mental health services, but no additional information was mentioned and the DHHS did not follow up to see whether she was actually participating in these services or needed additional referrals. Meanwhile, the trial court did not act on the respondent’s requests and changed the goal to adoption.

The DHHS subsequently filed a supplemental petition requesting the trial court terminate the respondent’s parental rights to the children. At the termination hearing, the caseworker testified the respondent failed to remedy her substance abuse and domestic violence issues, and had tested positive for methamphetamine eight days before the hearing. The caseworker also indicated the respondent failed to follow the recommendations from her psychological evaluation. However, the caseworker also acknowledged that referrals for a neurological evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation were never made, and she could not remember whether she had made a referral for individual therapy.

The psychologist who performed the respondent’s evaluation testified at the termination hearing. He stated the respondent had several cognitive deficiencies and these deficiencies were making it difficult for the respondent to parent effectively. The children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) also testified that the trial court should not terminate the respondent’s parental rights because she did not believe the DHHS had offered the respondent and the family enough services.

The trial court ultimately ruled the DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification and the statutory grounds for termination were met. Accordingly, the trial court held it was in the children’s best interests to terminate the respondent’s parental rights.

The respondent appealed.

Insufficient Reunification Efforts

On appeal, the respondent argued that:

• the DHHS failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children because it did not make referrals for mental health services that were recommended after her psychological evaluation, which she was required to follow according to her case service plan.

• had the DHHS offered the respondent mental health services and provided referrals, she could have adequately addressed her issues and demonstrated her ability to effectively parent.

At the outset of its analysis, the Court of Appeals pointed out that, in finding the DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification, “the trial court placed a considerable amount of weight on the fact that DHHS was never found to be in non-compliance at any prior hearing, noting that ‘[t]here was never a finding by a Referee that there was a refusal to comply by the Agency with a court order,’ and ‘[t]he Agency was never found to be in non-compliance at any prior hearing with again the matter pending before the Court for eighteen months.’ The trial court concluded that respondent’s argument that she was not provided services failed because DHHS provided her services to address her substance abuse and domestic violence issues, and she failed to participate in or benefit from these services and these issues still existed at the time of the termination hearing.”

The trial court, however, “did not address DHHS’s failure to provide referrals for mental health services and did not consider whether DHHS’s efforts to address respondent’s mental health issues were sufficient,” the Court of Appeals explained. “Further, the trial court, the referees, and DHHS failed to address respondent’s requests throughout the trial court proceeding for mental health treatment. The trial court record does not demonstrate that respondent was provided with referrals to follow the recommendations from her psychological evaluation, or to obtain mental health treatment. Respondent’s attorney objected on two separate occasions to DHHS’s lack of provision of referrals for mental health services, and informed the trial court that respondent wanted to participate in both individual and family therapy. Despite these objections, the record does not reflect that DHHS provided respondent with any referrals for a psychiatric evaluation, a neurological evaluation, or mental health services.”

In addition, during the respondent’s termination hearing, the caseworker “testified that respondent did not follow the recommendations from her psychological evaluation, but admitted that she never gave respondent a referral for either a psychiatric evaluation or a neurological evaluation and could not remember whether she gave her a referral for individual therapy,” the Court of Appeals noted. “Respondent’s caseworker also did not provide respondent with referrals for individual or family counseling, even though respondent directly asked for therapy referrals twice.”

As a result, the DHHS “failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite respondent and her children because it failed to provide respondent with referrals or assistance to follow the recommendations of her psychological evaluation, including obtaining a psychiatric evaluation, a neurological evaluation, and individual therapy,” the Court of Appeals said. “Without these evaluations, it could not be determined whether respondent needed treatment and what treatment was necessary, and respondent was unable to receive treatment, which could have helped her resolve her substance abuse issues or improve her parenting skills.”

Moreover, the respondent’s requests to obtain mental health services “were ignored” and this therapy “could have helped her address her cognitive deficits and her ability to parent,” the Court of Appeals observed. “Although respondent indicated during a review hearing that she had received mental health services, this was not mentioned during the termination hearing, and no additional evidence regarding whether she was receiving individual therapy was presented. As a result, DHHS’s failure to provide respondent with these services prevented her from having a ‘meaningful opportunity to comply with a case service plan.’”

The respondent also demonstrated that had the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts and provided her referrals for a psychiatric evaluation, a neurological evaluation and therapy, “she would have fared better,” the Court of Appeals said. “Because respondent’s cognitive deficiencies could have been treated through medication or additional mental health services, had respondent received referrals for a neurological evaluation, a psychiatric evaluation, and therapy, she could have received additional treatment that may have resolved or decreased these deficiencies, which in turn could have allowed her to more effectively address her substance abuse issues and allow her to parent effectively.”

Therefore, because the respondent identified the services the DHHS should have provided to accommodate her needs and demonstrated that she would have fared better if the DHHS had offered these services, the respondent “established that DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family,” the Court of Appeals concluded.