13.7Required Reasonable Efforts Determination

DHHS is obligated to make reasonable efforts to reunify a child and the child’s family in all cases except those cases involving an aggravated circumstance listed in MCL 712A.19a(2). In re Simonetta, 340 Mich App 700, 707 (2022). “The mere fact of imprisonment is not one of [those aggravating circumstances].” In re Dixon (On Reconsideration), ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023). In Dixon, the Court held that the DHHS was obligated to make reasonable efforts at reunification with the child’s father after the mother’s parental rights were terminated, even though the father was incarcerated. Dixon, ___ Mich App at ___. A trial court is required “to permit ‘regular and frequent parenting time’ when a child is removed from a parent’s care,” despite that the parent is incarcerated. Id. at ___, quoting MCL 712A.13a(13), and MCL 712A.18f(3)(e). In Dixon, the DHHS failed to arrange for the father to have video visits with his child as the trial court had ordered. Dixon, ___ Mich App at ___. Further, the DHHS did little to provide the incarcerated father with services “even after he was named as a respondent.” Id. at ___. “At the very least, the caseworker must provide available workbooks for father to complete, as has been done in many other cases involving incarcerated parents.” Id. at ___.

After determining that a respondent’s lack of medical knowledge about the respondent’s child’s medical condition is an obstacle to reunification, the DHHS is obligated to provide the respondent with resources to overcome that obstacle. In re OO Claudio-Perez, ___ Mich ___, ___ (2024).Respondent’s parental rights were terminated on the basis of respondent’s inability “to properly care for her medically fragile son suffering from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.” Id. at ___. Having identified the deficiency, the DHHS failed to make “reasonable efforts to cure that deficiency.” Id. at ___. “When DHHS fails to provide a respondent with any resources to overcome the obstacles to reunification, it necessarily fails to make reasonable efforts at reunification.” Id. at ___.

If an agency during a child protective proceeding advises a court not to place a child in the custody of the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian, the agency must submit a written report to the court stating:

“what efforts were made to prevent the child’s removal from his or her home[;] or

the efforts made to rectify the conditions that caused the child’s removal from his or her home.” MCL 712A.18f(1). See also MCR 3.973(E)(2).

The written report must include all of the following:

“(a) If services were provided to the child and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian, the services, including in-home services, that were provided.

(b) If services were not provided to the child and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian, the reasons why services were not provided.

(c) Likely harm to the child if the child were to be separated from his or her parent, guardian, or custodian.

(d) Likely harm to the child if the child were to be returned to his or her parent, guardian, or custodian.” MCL 712A.18f(1).

“The court, on consideration of the written report prepared by the agency responsible for the care and supervision of the child pursuant to MCL 712A.18f(1), shall, when appropriate, include a statement in the order of disposition as to whether reasonable efforts were made:

      (a)    to prevent the child’s removal from home, or

      (b)    to rectify the conditions that caused the child to be removed from the child’s home.” MCR 3.973(F)(3). See also MCL 712A.18f(4), which contains substantially similar language.

Note: To establish a child’s eligibility for federal foster care maintenance payments under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, a court is required to make a finding that reasonable efforts have been made to avoid non-emergency removal of a child from his or her home and placement of the child in foster care. 42 USC 672(a)(1). See Section 8.4 for a detailed discussion of the reasonable efforts finding, and Section 14.1 for a detailed discussion of federal funding.¹

“[E]fforts at reunification cannot be reasonable under the Probate Code unless the [DHHS] modifies its services as reasonably necessary to accommodate a parent’s disability[, a]nd termination is improper without a finding of reasonable efforts.” In re Hicks (Hicks II), 500 Mich 79, 90 (2017), aff’g in part, vacating in part 315 Mich App 251 (2016) (finding that “[d]espite the recommendations of the [DHHS’s] medical professionals that [the respondent-mother] could benefit from services tailored to her [intellectual] disability[,] . . . and despite the [DHHS’s] failure to provide those court-ordered services, the circuit court nonetheless [improperly] concluded that the [DHHS] had made reasonable efforts at reunification and terminated [the respondent’s] parental rights[;]” although the DHHS “cannot accommodate a disability of which it is unaware[,]” it was “clear that the [DHHS] knew of [the respondent’s] disability[, and o]nce the [DHHS] knew of the disability, its affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts at reunification meant that it could not be ‘passive in [its] approach . . . as far as the provision of accommodations is concerned[]’”), quoting Pierce v Dist of Columbia, 128 F Supp 3d 250, 269 (D DC, 2015).

 

“Although DHHS has a responsibility to expend reasonable efforts to provide services to secure reunification, there exists a commensurate responsibility on the part of the respondent-parent to participate in the services and demonstrate having benefited from them.” In re MJC, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023).

For additional information on providing reasonable accommodations for disabled parents subject to child protective proceedings, see Section 13.8.