Court Opinion

ID: 9840092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 05:08:00.85827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:26.810818
License: Public Domain

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                                                                       UNPUBLISHED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 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/Brown1 treatment.

        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).

                                                  -1-
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

                                                -2-