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UNPUBLISHED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 HILL/KEARNEY/WATSON, Minors. September 14, 2023

No. 363920

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2016-521897-NA

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and O’BRIEN and FEENEY, JJ.

FEENEY, J. (concurring)

While I agree with the reasoning set forth in the opinion, I write separately to address the 

issue of providing reasonable efforts in cases where parents should receive the benefits of In re 

Hicks/Brown1treatment.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Foster Care 

Manual, FOM 722-06F (2016), requires that “where a parent is suffering from a disability, the 

Department recognizes as a matter of policy and federal law that it must ‘make all programs and 

services available and fully accessible to persons with disabilities.’ . . . [I]n a case with a disabled 

parent, the Department’s obligation to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled parent 

will be a part of the statutory duty to make ‘reasonable efforts’ unless one of the enumerated 

exceptions apply.” In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich at86-87.Parent Brown in the Hicks/Brown case 

had a functional assessment indicating “a moderate to severe cognitive performance issue with 

impaired judgment; her psychological assessment revealed an IQ of 70 “within the borderline of 

intellectual functioning.” Id. at 87 n 5. 

In the current case, respondent’s psychological evaluation diagnosed her with anxiety 

disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and borderline intellectual functioning as well 

as unspecified neurodevelopmental disorder; her full-scale IQ was 74, which is the 4th percentile 

and the borderline range of intellectual functioning. The psychological evaluation recommended 

a parent advocate or responsible legal guardian, supportive services to assist in household 

management including budgeting, individual counseling to deal with cognitive behavioral and 

 

1

In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich 79, 86-87; 893 NW2d 637 (2017).
-2-

stress management, and parenting classes requiring “multiple exposures to new material and extra 

practice sessions as well [as] modelling [sic] of the specific behaviors” due to her learning issues. 

See In re Sanborn, 337 Mich App 252, 264-265; 976 NW2d 44 (2021). While respondent received 

services for an extended period of time (i.e., approximately 5 years), DHHS had an ongoing 

obligation to accommodate respondent’s intellectual challenges by continuing to take action, 

which could include drafting a simplified parent-agency agreement or a bullet-point listing of their 

barriers and how a specific referral can address that barrier. DHHS can also implement “to do 

lists” that are understandable and frequently reviewed, send text and email reminders to attend 

appointments, provide picture instructions for washing dishes or cleaning the house, take parents 

to appointments, having parents make calls to service or housing providers from the case 

manager’s office, draft weekly activity calendars complete with phone numbers and addresses, and 

schedule frequent meetings with respondent parents. While these efforts may seem more active 

than reasonable, respondents with borderline intellectual challenges need more than a verbal 

instruction or request to attend counseling, for example, with no follow up. DHHS can also provide 

connections to local agencies that assist parents with cognitive challenges to overcome 

reunification obstacles so they can obtain employment training and transportation services. Given 

that the children were placed with their fathers, providing respondent with additional reunification 

services geared toward accommodating her disabilities should not jeopardize their permanence or 

stability. See In re Olive Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 43-44; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). 

/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney