Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (h), & (j); Principle that only one statutory ground must be met; In re VanDalen; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; Principle that the state is not relieved of its duties to engage an absent parent merely because the parent is incarcerated; MCR 2.004(A)-(C); MCR 2.004(E)(1) & (4); In re Mason; Effect of a failure to engage a parent in child protection proceedings; In re DMK; Creation of a service plan; MCL 712A.18f(3)(d); A parent’s commensurate responsibility to participate in & benefit from the services offered; In re Frey; In re TK; Principle that a failure to comply with the plan is evidence of a parent’s inability to provide proper care & custody; In re JK; Challenge to the adequacy of the services offered; In re Fried; Whether a child is considered Native American under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 USC § 1901 et seq.); In re Morris

Holding that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, that the ICWA did not apply, and that at least one statutory ground was met, the court affirmed termination of respondent-father’s parental rights to the child. His rights were terminated based primarily on his lengthy incarceration. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by finding the DHHS made reasonable efforts to preserve the family because it did not use reasonable efforts to communicate with him. The DHHS “was found to have made reasonable efforts by developing a service plan, interviewing suitable relatives for placement, providing foster care case management, and offering case management services.” In addition, he “was provided telephonic communication for every stage of the proceedings.” And while he was “unable to attend several dispositional review hearings dispersed throughout the proceedings, arrangements were made by DHHS to allow his attendance.” Further, the DHHS “tailored the service plan to respondent on the basis of his limited access as an inmate in a Tennessee prison, but he failed to participate in the services in which he could have participated and ultimately did not benefit from these services.” Moreover, the ICWA “did not apply to the child custody proceedings because [the child] was not considered an Indian child.” The court also rejected his claim that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. “Because respondent did not voluntarily grant legal custody to a fit and appropriate relative for the remainder of his incarceration, despite the two-year duration of these child protection proceedings, the trial court did not err in determining that there was no reasonable likelihood of rectification.” In addition, his “failure to minimally comply with the terms of his service plan that were capable of being addressed during his incarceration support[ed] the trial court’s finding that [he] did not provide care and custody of [the child], and was unlikely to do so in the future.” Finally, respondent will be imprisoned for such a period that the child “would be deprived of a normal home for a period exceeding two years,” and there was “no reasonable expectation that [he] could provide proper care and custody in that timeframe.”