Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), & (j); Advising a parent of appellate rights under MCR 3.965(B)(15); MCR 3.971(B)(6)-(8); The 63-day requirement; MCR 3.972(A); Waiver; In re MJC; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Sanborn; A parent’s commensurate responsibility to participate in the services that are offered; In re Frey

The court held that: (1) the trial court adequately advised respondent-father of certain appellate rights, (2) he waived his 63-day rule challenge, and (3) the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. Thus, it affirmed termination of his parental rights to the children, which was based on his alcoholism and physical abuse (he pled guilty to assaulting one of the children and was sentenced to probation). On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the referee failed to advise him of his appellate rights pursuant to MCR 3.965(B)(15) at the preliminary hearing. The DHHS conceded that the trial court failed to comply with the statute. However, the trial court did advise him “of his appellate rights and ability to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction or ‘any errors in the adjudicatory process’ under MCR 3.971(B)(6)-(8) at the adjudication hearing.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court violated the 63-day requirement in MCR 3.972(A) by allowing a six-month gap between the preliminary hearing and the plea taken at the adjudication that occurred during the rescheduled pretrial/review hearing, noting it was contradicted by the record. Respondent “waived the matter, which is an intentional relinquishment of a known right that eliminates any error and forecloses appellate review.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the DHHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. “The record is replete with various services that were provided to the children . . . , especially mental health counseling and treatment as well as trauma assessments, which” respondent did not dispute. “The record is equally filled with examples of respondent[‘s] noncompliance with his alcohol and drugs screenings, as well as various parenting classes and substance abuse counseling that he was ordered to complete.” Although it was “unfortunate that family counseling did not begin earlier in this matter due in part to the trauma he inflicted on the children, respondent . . . did not demonstrate sufficient compliance with, or benefit from, the services that were offered to address the primary bases for the petition being filed: [his] alcoholism, emotional instability and poor parenting skills, which culminated in his assault of” one of the children. As such, even if the “DHHS’s services had been more thorough or started sooner, [he] cannot establish that the outcome of this matter would have been different . . . .” While the “DHHS established reasonable efforts for reunification at the outset of the case, respondent . . . never fully availed himself of the serv[ic]es nor benefitted from them.”