Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2); In re Hicks; Aggravating circumstances; In re MJC; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations; In re Sanborn; Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Sanford; Whether children’s best interests must be considered together; Whether a guardianship must be considered; In re TK

Holding that the DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent-mother with her two children, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed the termination of her parental rights. Her rights were terminated based on her lack of cognitive ability to parent, improper supervision of the children, lack of participation in services, disregard for the children’s medical care, and ongoing domestic violence. On appeal, the court found that the DHHS “made reasonable efforts to reunify respondent and her children and modified the offered services to accommodate respondent’s cognitive disability.” But despite “the additional assistance with services, respondent failed to participate consistently in the provided services.” And despite the numerous services and accommodations provided, “respondent was unable to demonstrate sufficient ability or understanding to safely care for the children, and failed to demonstrate that she would have been able to acquire sufficient ability to care for the children had different or additional services or accommodations been offered.” The court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests and the trial court did not have to consider the children individually or the possibility of a guardianship. The trial court “considered respondent’s lack of parenting ability, as shown by the ongoing safety and health concerns, and [her] lack of engagement in, and progress from, the services offered.” It also considered “the children’s need for stability and permanency, which their foster home provided, the children’s bond with their foster parents, the foster parents’ willingness to adopt both children, and that the children were doing well mentally, emotionally, and physically in the foster home.” In addition, apart from one child’s “dental health, there were no characteristics or needs warranting separate consideration of each child.” There was also no need to consider a guardianship, even though respondent claimed it “would allow her more time to improve her parenting skills. The focus of the best-interests inquiry, however, is the child rather than the parent. Moreover, there was no clear timeline in this case regarding if or when respondent would improve sufficiently to care for her children.”