Court Opinion

ID: 9953427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 05:06:23.647704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:51:02.610655
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                                                                     UNPUBLISHED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 ZM, Minor.                                                     March 21, 2024

                                                                     No. 368114
                                                                     Ingham Circuit Court
                                                                     Family Division
                                                                     LC No. 22-000578-NA

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and BOONSTRA and CAMERON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Respondent-father appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to the minor
child, ZM, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c), MCL 712A.19b(3)(h), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). For the
reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.

                                         I. BASIC FACTS

        ZM was removed from his parent’s care in September 2022. At the time, respondent was
unable to provide ZM with care because he was incarcerated, and removal from his mother’s care
was required as a result of her substance abuse and minimal participation in intensive neglect
services. Respondent did not put forward any relatives with whom ZM could be placed for care
while he was incarcerated. Eventually, petitioner filed a supplemental petition seeking termination
of ZM’s parents parental rights. Following a termination hearing, the trial court found statutory
grounds to terminate their parental rights and found that termination of his parents’ parental rights
was in ZM’s best interests. Consequently, the court entered an order terminating their parental
rights. Respondent appeals now as of right.1

                         II. REASONABLE REUNIFICATION EFFORTS

                                  A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

1
    ZM’s mother has not appealed the order terminating her parental rights to ZM.

                                                -1-
        Respondent’s sole argument on appeal is that petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts
to reunify him with ZM because his incarceration prevented petitioner from adequately providing
services to him. We review for clear error a trial court’s finding of fact regarding whether
petitioner made reasonable efforts to provide respondent with services aimed at reunification. In
re Atchley, 341 Mich App 332, 338; 990 NW2d 685 (2022).

                                          B. ANALYSIS

        Generally, petitioner has a duty to make “reasonable efforts to reunify the child and
family.” MCL 712A.19a(2). However, under certain aggravating circumstances, no reunification
efforts are required. In re Atchley, 341 Mich App at 338. As relevant to this case, MCL
712A.19a(2)(d) provides that no reunification efforts are required if “[t]he parent is required by
court order to register under the sex offenders registration act.” It is undisputed that respondent is
required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, MCL 28.721 et
seq. as a result of a conviction of CSC-IV. As a result, no reunification efforts were required in
this case.

         Regardless, even if services were required, petitioner would have only been required to
make reasonable reunification services. On appeal, respondent does not direct this Court to any
additional services that could have been provided. Rather, his argument appears to be that because
some services were unavailable to him as a result of his incarceration, termination of his parental
rights is per se improper. Yet, the statute does not require that every conceivable service be
provided. Rather, it only requires reasonable reunification efforts. As explained in Atchley, “[t]his
means petitioner “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.” Atchley, 341 Mich
App at 338-339. Here, a case services plan was adopted setting forth the steps required by
petitioner and respondent.

         Yet, in light of respondent’s incarceration, the services available to him were significantly
limited. Despite the limitations, petitioner endeavored to provide respondent with services to
address his barriers. Indeed, throughout the proceedings, caseworkers kept in contact with
respondent via letters, phone calls, and e-mail correspondence. Respondent received photographs
of ZM and letter updates, which he replied to in return letters. Thus, unlike the incarcerated parent
in In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010), respondent was afforded a meaningful
and adequate opportunity to participate. Next, because the jail required respondent to pay for the
calls, money was deposited into his prison account so that he could engage in the visitation via
Zoom videoconferencing technology. In-person visitation was not possible as a result of his
incarceration. Next, caseworkers printed and sent him resources that were age-specific to ZM so
that his parenting-skills could be addressed. See In re Dixon (On Reconsideration), ___ Mich App
___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363388); slip op at 14 (stating that, at a minimum,
an incarcerated parent should be provided with workbooks to complete). Although petitioner
attempted to provide a psychological evaluation, no provider was willing to perform an evaluation
at the jail. Further, neither treatment for substance abuse, nor services aimed at addressing
respondent’s domestic-violence barrier were able to be provided while respondent was
incarcerated. Indeed, his caseworker testified that the jail was “less than cooperative in trying to
refer” respondent to programs, and she stated that there was “nothing that the agency could do to
get services to him, to get programs to him, to overcome” the barriers to reunification. Still, with

                                                 -2-
petitioner’s encouragement, respondent completed “Moral Reconation Therapy,” which is a
program dedicated to help inmates deal with being incarcerated and he voluntarily participated in
AA and NA meetings.

        In light of the above, the trial court found that reasonable efforts at reunification had been
made in this case. Notwithstanding that additional efforts could have conceivably been made, the
trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, even if reunification efforts
had been required in this case, respondent is not entitled to relief.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                              /s/ Mark T. Boonstra
                                                              /s/ Thomas C. Cameron

                                                 -3-