Reasonable reunification efforts; Notice of the adjudication hearing; Lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL)

The court held that DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. Also, the record did not support respondent-father’s contention that he was not properly served with notice of the adjudication hearing. Thus, he failed “to establish that his due-process rights were violated or that he is entitled to relief under plain-error review.” Respondent failed “to adequately explain how DHHS could have better accommodated his mental health diagnoses.” He also did “not establish that he would have fared better had additional efforts been made.” He further contended “on appeal that his work schedule and transportation issues prevented him from attending parenting sessions. However, throughout the case DHHS caseworkers testified that they were careful to work around respondent’s schedule.” Accordingly, the court was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred when it determined that DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent” with his child. As to his notice claim, his “attorney was present for the adjudication and did not dispute the trial court’s statement that respondent was present for the preliminary hearing and properly served. Nor did the prosecutor, the mother’s attorney, or the [LGAL]. In addition, respondent was notified of the adjudication hearing via mail.” Affirmed.