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UNPUBLISHED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 WATSON/WILSON, Minors. February 27, 2020

No. 349138; 349139; 349847

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 16-522445-NA

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and JANSEN and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals,1respondent-mother appeals as of right the trial court’s 

orders terminating her parental rights to LW, TW, DW, JW, HW, and SW under MCL 

712A.19b(3)(g), and respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court order terminating his 

parental rights to LW, TW, and DW under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).2 We affirm for the reasons 

stated in this opinion.

I. BASIC FACTS

The child protective proceedings in this case began in March 2016, after respondents’ 

one-year old child, DW, was taken to the hospital with a broken arm. Initially, respondentmother claimed the injury was caused by DW falling from her crib, but she eventually admitted 

that was not true and that she did not know how the injury occurred. Respondent-father denied 

knowing how the injury occurred. Petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS), filed a petition seeking termination of respondents’ parental rights to LW, TW, DW, 

and JW.

 

1

In re Watson/Wilson Minors, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 25, 2019 

(Docket Nos. 349138, 349139, and 349847).

2 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of JW’s father and of the unknown fathers of 

HW and SW. No appeal is pending from those termination decisions.
-2-

Respondents pleaded to jurisdiction, but following a termination hearing the court did not 

find statutory grounds to terminate their parental rights. The permanency goal was changed to 

reunification, and respondents were provided with services to address the barriers to 

reunification. Respondent-mother also gave birth to two additional children: JW and HW. The 

court assumed jurisdiction over JW in January 2017, and respondent continued to be provided 

with services aimed at reunifying her with all of the children. Respondent-father also continued 

to be offered services. However, throughout the case, respondents were largely noncompliant 

with their parent-agency agreements (PAAs), and their caseworkers opined that they derived no 

benefit from the portions of the agreement that they had completed. As a result, the DHHS 

sought termination of respondents’ parental rights to their respective children.

Following a termination hearing, the court found that there was clear and convincing 

evidence to terminate respondents’ parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and it found that 

termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The court found that 

DHHS had complied with its duty to provide reasonable efforts to reunify respondents with their 

respective children in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 

12101 et seq. Respondents’ appeals in Docket Nos. 349138 and 349139 follow from this order.

Shortly after her parental rights were terminated, respondent-mother gave birth to a sixth 

child, SW. Respondent-mother was interviewed at the hospital, and she explained that she was 

homeless, did not have an income, and had rejected treatment for her cognitive impairment. 

Thereafter, the DHHS filed a petition seeking termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights 

to SW. And, after a combined adjudication trial and termination hearing, the court found 

statutory grounds to assume jurisdiction over SW, that termination of respondent’s parental 

rights to SW was warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and that termination of respondentmother’s parental rights was in SW’s best interests. Accordingly, it entered an order terminating 

respondent-mother’s parental rights, which she appeals by right in Docket No. 349847.

II. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondents argue that the trial court clearly erred by finding that the DHHS complied 

with its statutory duty to provide ADA-compliant reasonable efforts toward reunification. This 

Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s finding that “reasonable efforts were made to 

preserve and reunify the family.” In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 542-543; 702 NW2d 192 

(2005). A trial court clearly errs when “we are definitely and firmly convinced that it made a 

mistake.” In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 709-710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

B. ANALYSIS

Generally, “[u]nder Michigan’s Probate Code, [the DHHS] has an affirmative duty to 

make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.” In re 
-3-

Hicks/Brown Minors, 500 Mich 79, 85; 893 NW2d 637 (2017).3 “As part of these reasonable 

efforts, [the 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. 

In this case, respondents were provided with a case services plan outlining the barriers to 

reunification and the services that would be provided to them to rectify the conditions leading to 

court involvement. Under their respective PAAs, respondents were required to participate in 

parenting classes, individual counseling, domestic-violence counseling (with an anger 

management component for respondent-father), and submit to psychological evaluations. In 

addition, they were to visit the children consistently and maintain a suitable residence and 

income.

Although reunification services were offered, respondents argue that the DHHS failed in 

its duty under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodations in light of their cognitive 

impairments. The DHHS “must comply with the ADA” when it is establishing a plan for 

reunification services. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). “Title II of the 

ADA requires that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be 

excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of 

a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” In re Hicks/Brown, 500 

Mich at 86 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the DHHS “must make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid 

discrimination on the basis of disability” unless such modifications would fundamentally alter 

the services provided. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). When the DHHS fails to do 

so, it “fail[s] in its duty to make reasonable efforts at reunification under MCL 712A.19a(2).” Id.

At the time the PAA’s were entered in September 2016, the caseworker indicated that, 

depending on the results of the psychological evaluations, specialized parenting classes might be 

required. In December 2016, at the next dispositional hearing, the caseworker reported that 

respondent-father had submitted to his psychological evaluation. The evaluation indicated that 

he needed parenting classes and individual therapy, both of which were already being provided. 

Further, because of respondent-father’s cognitive deficits, he was going to be referred for 

Neighborhood Service Organization (NSO) services. With regard to respondent-mother, the 

caseworker stated that she had missed her appointment for the psychological evaluation and had 

to be re-referred. Because of their cognitive issues, the court ordered parent partners for 

respondents. Finally, the court explained that once respondent-mother’s psychological 

evaluation was completed the need for more services could be addressed.

By March 2017, respondent-mother had still not completed the psychological evaluation. 

And, although respondent-father was not yet receiving the ordered NSO services, the caseworker 

explained that she was unable to refer him to the program because he had to personally apply. 

 

3

In In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90-91; 836 NW2d 182 (2013), this Court held that the DHHS 

is not required to make reasonable reunification efforts if it seeks termination of the respondentparents’ parental rights at the initial disposition. In addition, reunification efforts are not 

required if there are aggravating circumstances, such as those enumerated in MCL 712A.19a(2).
-4-

She stated that he needed to come to the office so that she could help him set up the service. 

Neither respondent had received a referral for a parent partner at that time. In light of the delay 

in services, the court set a review hearing for 45 to 60 days instead of the typical 90 days 

between hearings. The shortened review time was an accommodation offered to respondents in 

light of respondent-father’s diagnosed disability and respondent-mother’s perceived disability.

The next review hearing occurred in May 2017. Respondent-mother had still not 

completed her psychological evaluation, was not in compliance with her parenting classes, and 

had been terminated from the parent-partner program based on her failure to keep in contact with 

her parent partner. Respondent-mother was referred to a supportive-visitation program. As part 

of that program, a parenting specialist would observe parenting-time visits, provide feedback and 

corrections during or after the visits, and help respondent-mother learn appropriate parenting 

skills. She was, however, terminated from that program because she refused to participate and 

told the specialist that she did not need the program. On questioning from the court, the 

caseworker explained that until respondent-mother submitted to the psychological evaluation, the 

DHHS’s ability to tailor services to her perceived cognitive impairment was limited. Yet, she 

also stated that respondent-mother would be re-referred to the parent-partner program.

Respondent-father also made minimal progress during the reporting period. He was 

terminated from his parenting classes, had to be re-referred for domestic-violence counseling, 

had been terminated from the parent-partner program for noncompliance, and was only partially 

compliant with parenting time. Respondent-father was still not receiving NSO services, but the 

caseworker explained that he still had not come to the office so that they could aid him in setting 

up that service. The caseworker indicated that she planned to re-refer respondent-father to the 

parent-partner program. At the end of the hearing, concerned that respondents may need 

additional services because of their cognitive impairments, the court sua sponte ordered that 

respondents be provided with a court appointed special advocate (CASA) to try and help them 

engage in the offered services.

At the July 2017 review hearing, respondent-mother had still not completed her 

psychological evaluation, and, although she completed her domestic-violence therapy, she was 

otherwise noncompliant with the rest of her PAA. Respondent-father was also not in compliance 

with his PAA, and the court ordered him to stay in contact with his caseworker so that the 

services for his cognitive impairment could be secured.

In October 2017 little progress had been made. Respondent-mother had been again 

terminated from her parenting classes, was about to be terminated from her individual therapy, 

had still not submitted to the ordered psychological evaluation, and attended 5 out of 12 offered 

parenting-time visits. Her caseworker reported that at each of the parenting-time visits, she 

spoke with respondent-mother and provided her with information on how to obtain all the 

services being offered, but respondent-mother did not taken advantage of the services. 

Respondent-father completed his parenting classes, but was unable to demonstrate any benefit. 

He attended 1 of the 12 offered parenting-time visits. He was terminated from his domesticviolence counseling and individual therapy. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered 

that respondent-mother receive any services that the DHHS felt necessary, even in the absence of 

her psychological evaluation.
-5-

By the December 2017 review hearing, respondent-mother had finally completed her 

psychological evaluation. She was diagnosed with a cognitive impairment, and the DHHS 

indicated that she would be re-referred to a parent partner. Although respondent-mother was 

offered other services between October 2017 and December 2017, the psychological evaluation 

was the only service she completed. Respondent-father was similarly noncompliant with his 

PAA. He had been re-referred for individual counseling, but when his counselor had tried to 

assist him with housing and obtaining a developmental-delay evaluation, respondent-father 

became angry and stormed out of the office. The parents’ CASA indicated that the DHHS was 

doing everything it could, but that respondents were not engaging in services.

In March 2018, the lack of progress continued. Respondent-mother had been referred to 

a new parent partner, but she was not engaging with the partner or following the partner’s 

recommendations. She still did not have housing or income, had not completed individual 

therapy, had not completed parenting classes (which she had been referred to six times), and only 

attended 7 out of 15 offered parenting-time visits. Respondent-father had been twice terminated 

and re-enrolled in individual counseling, had still not completed domestic-violence counseling or 

parenting classes, lacked housing, and participated in fewer than half of the offered parentingtime visits. At the end of the review hearing, respondents argued that the DHHS was not making 

reasonable efforts to reunite them with their children, but the court found that the DHHS was 

doing all that it could and respondents were not fulfilling their concomitant duty to take 

advantage of the services offered. The court again ordered a shortened review period, but 

between the March 2018 hearing and the April 2018 hearing, no significant changes occurred.

In June 2018, the caseworker reported that respondent-mother had participated in a 

psychiatric evaluation, which recommended that she engage in individual trauma-based therapy. 

Respondent-mother, however, was terminated from her therapy based on her lack of 

participation. As for respondent-father, he reported that he was married and living with his wife. 

He still had not completed domestic-violence therapy or individual therapy. Thereafter, the 

DHHS sought termination of respondents’ parental rights.

On appeal, respondents contend that more should have been done to accommodate their 

cognitive impairments. But, as is plain from the record, offering more services to accommodate 

respondents would have yielded little gain. From 2016 until 2019, respondents were provided 

with numerous services, including services ordered as an accommodation for their cognitive

impairments. They largely failed to take advantage of the services.

For respondent-mother, the record reflects that her repeated failure to attend the 

psychological evaluation resulted in a delay in receiving specialized services. Although the

DHHS has a duty to provide ADA-compliant services, respondent parents have a duty to 

“participate or demonstrate that they sufficiently benefited from the services provided.” In re 

Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248; 824 NW2d 569 (2012). Moreover, even without a psychological 

evaluation, respondent-mother was referred to a parent partner, was offered a supportivevisitation specialist, and the court appointed a CASA to aid her in engaging in reunification 

services. She did not, however, engage with the parent partner and was terminated. Further, she 

rejected the supportive-visitation specialist. After being re-referred to the parent-partner 

program, she was terminated for lack of participation. In this case, we conclude that the trial 
-6-

court did not clearly err by finding that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondentmother with her children and that those efforts were compliant with the ADA.

As to respondent-father, it was determined early in the case that he had a cognitive 

impairment. Specialized services were ordered and it was repeatedly stated that, to avail himself 

of those services, he had to apply himself. The DHHS repeatedly stated that it would assist with 

that process, but respondent-father did not participate. Further, although respondent-father was 

provided with a parent partner, his failure to engage resulted in his termination from that 

program. Likewise, although he was provided with parenting classes, domestic-violence 

therapy, and individual therapy he either did not participate or did not benefit from his 

participation. Based on the record, the court did not clearly err by finding that the DHHS made 

reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-father with his children and that those efforts were 

compliant with the ADA.

III. STATUTORY GROUNDS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondents argue that the trial court clearly erred by finding clear and convincing

evidence to terminate their parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). “This Court reviews for 

clear error the trial court’s factual findings and ultimate determinations on the statutory grounds 

for termination.” White, 303 Mich App at 709.

B. ANALYSIS

The trial court terminated respondents’ parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), 

which allows for termination if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he 

parent, although, in the court’s discretion, financially able to do so, fails to provide proper care or 

custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide 

proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.”

“A parent’s failure to participate in and benefit from a service plan is evidence that the 

parent will not be able to provide a child proper care and custody.” White, 303 Mich App at 710. 

As is detailed above, respondents failed to fully participate in and benefit from the PAAs. 

Respondent-mother was terminated from the parent-partner program on two occasions. She was 

inconsistent in attending parenting time. After a number of re-referrals to parenting classes, 

respondent-mother finally completed them, but she was unable to demonstrate a benefit. During 

visits, she was unable to focus on more than one child at a time. She also was observed 

bouncing HW, whose head needed to be stabilized because he had been born with water on his 

brain, and giving another child food without regard to his known allergy. In both cases, the 

DHHS staff intervened to avoid harm to the children and attempted to explain the problem to 

respondent. Respondent-mother was disinterested in how to avoid the dangers posed by her 

behavior. This disregard for the children was also exhibited through her giving Skittles to a baby

and leaving the younger children unattended for long periods of time. Respondent-mother also
-7-

overextended SW’s joints during an attempted exercise. Further, respondent-mother was unable 

to obtain housing and appeared to be homeless at the time of the termination hearing.

4

 

Respondent-mother had untreated cognitive deficits, which inhibited her parenting ability. 

Despite those impairments, respondent-mother was repeatedly terminated from individual 

counseling during the course of the case. Further, during the termination hearing of SW, 

respondent-mother acknowledged that she had abandoned any form of treatment for her mental 

issues. She was not seeing a doctor or engaging in counseling, and she had decided to stop 

taking her prescribed medication. Given the length of time that services had been provided to 

rectify the issues, and respondent-mother’s lack of progress, the trial court did not err by finding 

that she would be unable to remedy any or all of those problems within a reasonable time. 

Termination was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).

We also discern no error in the court’s decision to terminate respondent-father’s parental 

rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). At the time of the termination hearing, respondent-father 

was in jail and planned to get divorced when he got out. Nothing on the record supports that he 

would have a place to live upon release from jail.5 Respondent-father had untreated mental 

health issues, and the record reflects that he had a domestic-violence felony conviction in 2013 

and had been accused of domestic violence by his wife, who had recently obtained a personal 

protection order against him. Respondent-father also had issues with anger. He was removed 

from services or refused to engage in services because of his anger, but rather than engage in 

services to remedy the issue he refused to engage in weekly counseling or in any domesticviolence counseling. Respondent-father’s history of domestic violence and untreated anger 

issues are troubling because the children entered DHHS’s care because DW went to the hospital 

after her arm was broken while in his care. The doctors believed the injury to be non-accidental. 

Respondent-father also exhibited problems with parenting ability. He failed to visit the children

on a regular basis. When respondent-father would come to visits, he wanted to spend a 

significant amount of time discussing his case with the DHHS caseworker supervising the 

parenting time. If the worker attempted to redirect respondent-father and suggest he focus on his 

children, he would refuse or become belligerently angry and be required to leave. The DHHS 

attempted to provide services which would have helped respondent-father with his parenting 

issues. However, respondent-father refused to participate. Based on this record, the trial court 

did not clearly err by terminating his parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).

 

4 We note that respondent-mother’s homelessness was not because of financial problems; she 

had been on the verge of receiving governmental assistance via an affordable-housing voucher 

before she stopped participating with the parent partner. In addition, respondent-mother failed to 

complete her application for social-security income.

5 We note that respondent-father’s housing issues were not caused by a of a lack of income. 

Respondent-father received social-security income throughout the proceedings.
-8-

IV. BEST INTERESTS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondents contend that the trial court clearly erred in finding that it was in the 

children’s best interests to terminate their parental rights. This Court reviews a trial court’s

determination regarding best interests for clear error. White, 303 Mich App at 713.

B. ANALYSIS

“Once a statutory basis for termination has been shown by clear and convincing evidence, 

the court must determine whether termination is in the child’s best interests.” In re LaFrance, 

306 Mich App 713, 732-733; 858 NW2d 143 (2014). “The focus at the best-interest stage has 

always been on the child, not the parent.” In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson Minors, 311 Mich 

App 49, 63; 874 NW2d 205 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The court can 

consider “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for 

permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.” 

Id. at 63-64. The court can also consider “the length of time the child was in care, the likelihood 

that the child could be returned to her parents’ home within the foreseeable future, if at all, and 

compliance with the case service plan.” Id. at 64 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“[T]he fact that the children are in the care of a relative at the time of the termination hearing is 

an explicit factor to consider in determining whether termination was in the children’s best 

interest.” In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 43; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Respondents argue that the trial court failed to give appropriate weight to the fact that 

they loved and were bonded with the children. However, the existence of a bond between 

respondents and their children is a factor that was considered by the court, but it was not the only 

relevant factor in this case. Four of the children had been in care since 2016. Respondents were 

offered extensive services, which they barely engaged in and did not benefit from. Respondents 

did not have a place to live, were unable to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills, and had 

untreated mental health concerns. Respondent-mother had trouble discerning what was 

appropriate and safe for her children, and respondent-father showed an inability to control his 

anger.

Respondent-mother contends that a guardianship might have been appropriate or that the 

children could have been allowed to remain in a relative placement. Similarly, respondent-father 

asserts that there were family members willing to care for the children on a long-term basis. Yet, 

the children were placed with families who gave them appropriate and consistent care. DW was 

placed with a maternal relative and the other children were placed with foster families. The 

foster families and the maternal relative were prepared to adopt the children, and the DHHS 

foster care worker testified that a guardianship or long-term placement with a relative would not 

be appropriate because of the infinitesimal chance that reunification would occur. Thus, 

allowing respondents to be in their children’s lives without the possibility of reunification would 

hinder the children’s need for a sense of safety, permanency, and stability. Similarly, allowing 

more time for respondents to comply with services would be detrimental to the children, 

especially in light of the dismal progress respondents made between 2016 and 2019. Finally, as 
-9-

to HW and SW, the record reflects that they were medically fragile and needed specialized care, 

which the foster parents were providing. In light of the entire record, we conclude that the trial 

court did not err by finding termination of respondents’ parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

/s/ Michael J. Kelly