If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re BARTLETT, Minors. April 27, 2023

No. 363351

Genesee Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 19-136345-NA

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and MURRAY and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the 

children XB, KB, and BB under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication 

continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) (reasonable likelihood 

of harm if returned to parent).1 Respondent argues on appeal that the trial court erred by 

terminating her parental rights because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) 

failed to engage in reasonable efforts toward reunification, the statutory grounds for termination 

were not established by clear and convincing evidence, and it was not in the children’s best 

interests to terminate her parental rights. We reverse the trial court’s order terminating 

respondent’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion 

because DHHS failed to engage in reasonable efforts toward reunification. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The child protective proceedings began in October 2019 when DHHS filed a petition 

seeking jurisdiction over XB and KB, naming their father as a respondent. In January 2021, DHHS 

filed additional petitions also naming respondent-mother as a respondent, and adding respondent’s 

third child, BB, to the petition. These petitions alleged that it was contrary to the welfare of the 

children to remain in the home because of respondent’s substance abuse, domestic violence 

 

1 XB and KB’s father was originally a respondent in these proceedings, but his case was closed,

and XB and KB were returned to his care at the end of the trial court proceedings. BB’s father 

was not identified.
-2-

between respondent and her live-in partner, and possible sexual abuse of one of the children by 

respondent’s live-in partner.

Respondent pleaded to jurisdiction, and the trial court ordered respondent to follow her 

case service plan, which required that she attend parenting classes and show a benefit from them, 

attend substance abuse treatment, submit to random drug screens, participate in the parent partner 

program, complete a psychological evaluation and follow recommendations from it, obtain and 

maintain a legal source of income and provide verification of this, obtain and maintain appropriate 

housing, attend domestic violence educational programming, sign all necessary releases, and 

maintain contact with DHHS. Respondent was referred to various services throughout the trial 

court proceedings, but was not provided with mental health services or referrals. Respondent’s 

attorney requested that referrals be made several times during the termination hearings, and 

objected to a goal change from reunification to adoption because of this lack of services. Although 

respondent stated she was engaged in mental health services during one review hearing, no 

additional information regarding her participation in these services was mentioned in the entire 

trial court record, and DHHS did not follow up to see whether she was actually participating in 

these services or needed additional referrals. The trial court did not act upon these requests and

changed the goal to adoption, and DHHS filed a supplemental petition requesting that the trial 

court terminate respondent’s parental rights to the three children.

2

At respondent’s termination hearing, the DHHS caseworker testified that respondent had 

failed to rectify her substance abuse and domestic violence issues, and had tested positive for 

methamphetamine eight days before the termination hearing. In addition, respondent failed to 

follow the recommendations from her psychological evaluation, although the caseworker admitted 

that referrals for a neurological evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation were never made, and she 

could not remember whether she made a referral for individual therapy. 

The psychologist who had performed respondent’s psychological evaluation also testified

at the termination hearing. He testified that respondent had several cognitive deficiencies, which 

could be caused by brain damage, a head injury, a condition she was born with, a seizure, or 

substance abuse. These cognitive difficulties were making it difficult for respondent to parent 

effectively. As a result, he recommended that respondent obtain a psychiatric evaluation to 

determine whether she needs medication, a neurological evaluation to determine whether she had 

any organic brain problems or brain damage, and that she attend individual counseling. 

In addition, the children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) asserted at the hearing that the trial 

court should not terminate respondent’s parental rights because she did not believe DHHS had 

offered respondent and the family enough services. The GAL argued that the trial court could not 

appropriately ascertain whether respondent had rectified the conditions that led to the trial court 

obtaining jurisdiction; there was not enough evidence to determine whether respondent was 

provided with sufficient services because no psychiatric and neurological evaluations were 

performed. Even though DHHS had indeed provided services to respondent for her substance 

 

2 This supplemental petition also requested that the trial court terminate XB and KB’s father’s 

parental rights, but DHHS later withdrew this request.
-3-

abuse issues, the GAL argued that it was unclear whether adequate services were provided to 

address her substance abuse issues because it was unclear whether these issues were caused by an 

underlying mental health problem that was not discovered given that psychiatric and neurological 

evaluations were not performed. In addition, the GAL argued that DHHS’s refusal to provide 

respondent with bus passes unless she asked for them, its refusal to provide respondent with 

referrals for individual mental health, and its refusal to provide referrals for family counseling 

amounted to a failure to provide services. Respondent reiterated the GAL’s arguments during 

closing arguments. 

The trial court found that DHHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, that the 

statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were met, and that it 

was in the children’s best interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights.

II. REASONABLE EFFORTS

Respondent argues that DHHS failed to provide reasonable efforts to reunite her with her 

children because DHHS failed to provide referrals for mental health services recommended after 

her psychological evaluation, which she was required to follow according to her case service plan. 

In addition, respondent argues that had DHHS offered these mental health services and provided 

these referrals, respondent could have addressed her mental health and substance abuse issues and 

demonstrated her ability to effectively parent. 

This Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s factual finding that a petitioner made 

reasonable efforts to reunify a respondent with their child. In re Atchley, ___ Mich App ___, ___; 

___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket Nos. 358502, 358503); slip op at 3. A finding is clearly erroneous, 

even if there is evidence to support it, if this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been made. In re Smith, 324 Mich App 28, 43; 919 NW2d 427 (2018).

Except under aggravating circumstances not present here, DHHS has an affirmative duty 

to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before terminating parental rights. In re 

Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich 79, 85; 893 NW2d 637 (2017), citing MCL 712A.18f(3)(b) and (c); MCL 

712A.19a(2). “Reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases except 

those involving aggravated circumstances.” In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 786 NW2d 747 

(2010), quoting MCL 712A.19a(2) (quotation marks omitted). This requires that DHHS “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.” Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich at 85-86. DHHS and 

the trial court must ensure that a parent has a “meaningful opportunity to comply with a case 

service plan.” Mason, 486 Mich at 169. If DHHS fails to make reasonable efforts, termination of 

parental rights will be premature. Id. In order to demonstrate that DHHS did not make reasonable 

efforts to reunify the family, respondent must show that she would have fared better if DHHS had

offered other services. See In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 543; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). 

Respondent must also identify the services that DHHS should have provided to accommodate her

specific needs. See In re Sanborn, 337 Mich App 252, 266; 976 NW2d 44 (2021).

In finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunite respondent with her children, 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 
-4-

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. However, the trial court 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. 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. Further, during respondent’s termination 

hearing, respondent’s 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. Respondent’s caseworker also did not provide respondent 

with referrals for individual or family counseling, even though respondent directly asked for 

therapy referrals twice.

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 psychologist who completed respondent’s psychological evaluation

indicated that these additional evaluations were necessary to determine whether the deficits

indicated in her psychological evaluation, which could affect her ability to parent, were caused by 

her substance abuse issues or a brain injury. 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. In addition, respondent’s requests to obtain mental health therapy 

were ignored, and this therapy could have helped her address her cognitive deficits and her ability 

to parent. 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.” Mason, 486 Mich at 169.

Respondent also demonstrated that had DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the 

family by providing her with referrals for a psychiatric evaluation, a neurological evaluation, and 

therapy, she would have fared better. See Fried, 266 Mich App at 543. 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, 
-5-

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 respondent identified the 

services that DHHS should have provided to accommodate her needs, Sanborn, 337 Mich App at 

266, 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, Fried, 

266 Mich App at 543.3

Reverse and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain 

jurisdiction. 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray 

/s/ Anica Letica 

 

3 Because we conclude that the trial court failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite respondent 

and the children, we decline to address respondent’s additional challenges to the trial court’s 

determinations regarding the statutory grounds for termination and the children’s best interests.