Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); In re Gazella; In re Miller; In re JK; In re White; Children’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; In re Laster; In re Trejo Minors; Reasonable reunification efforts to modify respondent’s service plan to accommodate her cognitive disability; In re Frey; The Americans with Disabilities Act; In re Terry; MCR 3.977(K); In re Mason; In re Hicks/Brown; Jurisdiction; In re Ferranti Minor; Plain error review; People v. Carines; Whether respondent’s plea was knowingly, understandingly, & voluntarily made; MCR 3.971(C)(1); MCR 3.971(B); Whether the trial court established a factual basis to support a statutory ground for jurisdiction; MCR 3.971(C)(2); MCL 712A.2; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (b)(2)

The court held that the trial court properly terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights to the children where the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in their best interests. Also, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the DHHS made reasonable efforts for reunification by providing her with services to accommodate her cognitive disability. There was clear and convincing evidence to support termination of respondent’s parental rights under § (c)(i). The children were removed because “respondent’s 13-month-old daughter had suffered a non-accidental right humerus fracture and was also diagnosed with ‘failure to thrive,’ and her two-year-old son was found to be severely neglected, dirty, and with scars and lesions all over his body. Both children had been burned with cigarettes. The home was infested with roaches and was unclean.” Also, she had “abandoned her older daughter to the maternal grandmother, whose parental rights to all of her children had been terminated.” One of the primary areas of concern was her “inability and failure to obtain suitable housing, independent from her living-together partner who was the legal father of one of the children and the putative father of another. His parental rights had been terminated due to the abuse of these children.” She knew that the children would never be safely returned to her as long as she continued to live with him. However, throughout the case, she continued to do so. She had shown "that she could not rectify the conditions that led to the adjudication and there was no evidence that she would be able to rectify them within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.” Also, there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination under § (g). Respondent did not have the parenting skills, income, or independent housing needed to provide proper care and custody for her children. Although she had participated in many services, she did not show a benefit. Also, she “had refused to participate in some of the services, had not maintained communication with the service providers, and had missed appointments. After two years of services, it was clear that there was no reasonable expectation that respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages.” During the visitations, she was unable to manage the children. “She was not able to focus on more than one child at a time. She had not been able to retain or implement any of the parenting skills that the service providers had tried to teach her.” Affirmed.