In Re Driver Minors ( 2023 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
In re DRIVER, Minors. March 23, 2023
No. 363303
Berrien Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2021-000039-NA
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and JANSEN and CAMERON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent1 appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to her minor
children, RD, ND, MD, and LD, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions of adjudication
continue to exist) and (j) (reasonable likelihood that the children will be harmed if returned to the
parent). Respondent argues that termination was improper because the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) failed to expend reasonable efforts at reunification. We disagree, and
therefore, affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2021, law enforcement discovered the children living in deplorable conditions—their
home was covered in trash, the utilities were turned off, and they had minimal food. The children
were dirty and inappropriately dressed. One child was found walking barefoot through an area
covered in broken glass. Officers learned respondent would leave the children unsupervised for
several days, returning only to bring them food.
DHHS filed a petition asking the trial court to take jurisdiction over the children. After
taking jurisdiction over the children and placing them in foster care, the trial court ordered
respondent to participate in a case service plan. The case service plan outlined a number of
services, including, among other things, housing assistance, parenting classes, and a mental health
evaluation and treatment. Respondent only minimally participated in the plan. As a result, the
1
The children’s father was also a respondent in the trial court proceedings. Although the trial
court terminated the father’s parental rights, he is not a party to this appeal.
-1-
trial court ordered DHHS to file another petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights. The
trial court later found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s
best interests. This appeal followed.
II. REASONABLE EFFORTS
Respondent argues the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights. In her view,
DHHS failed to expend reasonable efforts at reunification because it did not provide her housing
assistance. We disagree.
A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
To preserve an objection to the services in a case service plan, a respondent must object at
the time the services are offered. In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 247; 824 NW2d 569 (2012),
quoting In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 27; 610 NW2d 563 (2000) (“The time for asserting the
need for accommodation in services is when the court adopts a service plan.”). Respondent never
specifically objected to DHHS’s plan for housing assistance. Therefore, this issue is unpreserved
for our review.
We usually review the trial court’s findings regarding reasonable efforts for clear error. In
re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 541-543; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). However, because these issues are
unpreserved, our “review is . . . limited to plain error affecting substantial rights.” In re Utrera,
281 Mich App 1, 8; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). “To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three
requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or
obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120,
135; 809 NW2d 412 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Generally, an error affects
substantial rights if it caused prejudice, i.e., it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” In re
Utrera, 281 Mich App at 9.
B. LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Under Michigan’s Probate Code, [DHHS] has an affirmative duty to make reasonable
efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.” In re Hicks/Brown, 500
Mich 79, 85; 893 NW2d 637 (2017). “As part of these reasonable efforts, [DHHS] must create a
service plan outlining the steps that both it and the parent will take to rectify the issues that led to
court involvement and to achieve reunification.” Id. at 85-86. Although “[DHHS] has a
responsibility to expend reasonable efforts to provide services to secure reunification, there exists
a commensurate responsibility on the part of respondents to participate in the services that are
offered.” In re Frey, 297 Mich App at 248. To prove a claim of lack of reasonable efforts, a
respondent must show that he or she would have fared better had DHHS offered other services. In
re Fried, 266 Mich App at 543.
Respondent argues on appeal that the reason the children were removed from her care was
because she lacked appropriate housing. She believes she “should have been given proper housing,
and not referrals to places who would not rent to a convicted criminal or to an evictee.” In making
this argument, it seems respondent believes it was DHHS’s responsibility to provide housing and
that if she were provided appropriate housing the children would have returned to her care.
-2-
There is no merit to respondent’s claim. DHHS is simply not obligated to provide housing
before seeking termination of parental rights and respondent does not identify any support for this
contention. Even so, housing assistance was among the services offered to respondent by DHHS
under the case service plan, yet there is no evidence in the record respondent ever endeavored to
use this service. Indeed, the record is replete with respondent’s refusals to engage in the case
service plan. Respondent had an obligation to participate in the case service plan, which she did
not do. In re Frey, 297 Mich App at 248. Moreover, housing was not the only barrier to
reunification and respondent’s arguments on appeal do not explain her failure to participate in
other aspects of the case service plan. Respondent does not show any error warranting our reversal
of the order terminating her parental rights to the children.2
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
2
Respondent did not raise the issues whether there existed statutory grounds for termination or
whether termination was in the children’s best interests. Nonetheless, having reviewed the record,
we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that there existed statutory grounds
for termination or that termination was in the children’s bests interests.
-3-