IN RE LONG MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TRML and KJL, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 10, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291775
Montcalm Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-000317-NA
BILL LONG,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Bandstra and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals by right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent first argues that petitioner did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the
family or to accommodate his disabilities. Petitioner was required to make reasonable efforts to
rectify the conditions that caused the children’s removal. MCL 712A.18f; In re Fried, 266 Mich
App 535, 542; 701 NW2d 192 (2005); In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25-26; 610 NW2d 563
(2000). In making these efforts, petitioner was required to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12101 et seq., and “to make reasonable accommodations for
those individuals with disabilities.” In re Terry, supra at 25. If petitioner failed “to take into
account [respondent’s] limitations or disabilities and make any reasonable accommodations, then
it cannot be found that reasonable efforts were made to reunite the family.” Id. at 26. We
review’s a trial court’s determination that petitioner made reasonable efforts to reunify the family
for clear error. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
We find that the trial court did not clearly err when it found that petitioner made
reasonable efforts to reunify the minor children with respondent and reasonably accommodated
respondent’s disabilities. Respondent raised the issue in a timely manner in his motion
requesting accommodations under the ADA. In re Terry, supra at 26. After hearing testimony
at the termination trial, the trial court specifically determined that respondent, who cannot read
and has mental health issues, suffered from a “disability” under the ADA and that he was entitled
to special accommodations.
-1-
Our review of the record reveals that petitioner accounted for and reasonably
accommodated respondent’s disabilities, as the trial court found. Petitioner’s foster care case
manager worked with respondent for a year. It was determined pursuant to a psychological
examination that respondent functioned at a fourth grade level for reading and writing. To
address this disability, the case manager read each portion of the parent treatment plan to
respondent and made sure he understood the requirements of the plan, her scoring of barriers,
and the referrals. In addition, the case manager had many phone contacts with respondent
regarding the treatment plan to ensure that respondent understood what he needed to do, and she
spoke with respondent weekly about the treatment plan when he was at that agency for his
supervised parenting time visits.
To address respondent’s disabilities and petitioner’s concern that respondent had attended
three groups of parenting classes before the minor children were removed from his care, the
foster care manager arranged for one-to-one in-home parenting classes, which took place once a
week for 12 weeks. The goal was to allow respondent to work closely with the instructor and
have more of an opportunity to ask questions. The instructor for the parenting class testified that
he was satisfied that respondent acquired basic knowledge of all the material covered. During
parenting time, the case manager assisted respondent when he was having trouble with the minor
children. She increased respondent’s visits to two hours so he would have more time with the
minor children to work on parenting skills. After a week, however, respondent requested to ease
into the additional time. The case manager stated that she spent more than the average amount of
time working with respondent and, in her opinion, believed that respondent was given a case
service plan that would benefit his needs specifically. Furthermore, she was not aware of any
other services that could be offered.
Respondent’s case coordinator through the Montcalm Center for Behavioral Health
testified that for two years she monitored respondent’s taking his medication, his symptoms, how
he was doing in the home, and budgeting; she believed that respondent’s needs were satisfied.
She worked with respondent in his home approximately one to two times a month. She indicated
she had to be very concrete and specific in respondent’s daily actions, breaking things down and
taking more time so that respondent could understand.
Regardless of a respondent’s disability, he must be able to attain the minimum parental
skills necessary to meet the children’s needs. “‘If a parent cannot or will not meet [his]
irreducible minimum parental responsibilities, the needs of the child must prevail over the needs
of the parent.’” In re Terry, supra at 28 (citation omitted). Further, “[t]he ADA does not require
petitioner to provide respondent with full-time, live-in assistance with [his] children.” Id. at 2728. Unfortunately, despite petitioner’s efforts, it was evident that respondent remained unable to
parent the minor children. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner made
reasonable efforts at reunification.
The trial court also did not err in finding that statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights were established and in terminating his rights. In order to terminate
parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination
in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Terry, supra at 2122. The trial court’s decision is reviewed for clear error. In re Miller, supra at 337.
-2-
The issue that led to adjudication was neglect of the minor children. KJL was left in his
crib for extended periods. Portions of his crib were missing, and portions had been chewed
through. When petitioner investigated a referral, the investigator found one child’s diaper
soaked, and he was wet from his torso to his knees. His room was used to store a variety of
items, including car parts and tools, and the items stored in his room were piled dangerously
high. The other child was diagnosed with failure to thrive, and no medical reason appeared to
account for this problem other than her parents’ failure to feed her appropriately. Respondent
and the children’s mother were provided with a myriad of services to address the issues of
neglect before the removal of the minor children. After their removal, respondent was provided
with mental health assistance, one-to-one in-home parenting classes, parenting time with the
minor children, and assistance and direction from petitioner during and after parenting time. His
parenting time was increased from one hour a week to two hours a week, but he was unable to
handle that length of parenting time. In addition, respondent was dependent on the children’s
mother to assist him in day-to-day activities, including care of the minor children. This was
problematic because her parental rights to another child had previously been terminated, and her
rights to the two children at issue were terminated during the pendency of this case.
The evidence was clear and convincing to support the trial court’s findings that
respondent’s parenting skills did not improve, and his ability to manage the behavior of the
minor children decreased as he became more frustrated and overwhelmed by the responsibilities.
In addition, although respondent had a great deal of affection and love for his children, he was
not able to provide guidance in a regular and sustained fashion and could not manage the food,
clothing, and medical care issues without assistance from others. Unfortunately, he required the
assistance of the children’s mother. While there is no question that respondent was provided
with reasonable services and that he participated in those services, he was unable to demonstrate
that he benefited from those services. The conditions that led to adjudication were not rectified,
nor would they be within a reasonable time. We have consistently held that a parent must benefit
from the services offered so that the parent can improve his or her parenting skills to the point
where the children would no longer be at risk in the parent’s custody. In re Gazella, 264 Mich
App 668, 676; 692 NW2d 708 (2005).
The evidence also supported the court’s finding that respondent had failed to provide
proper care and custody in the past and would be unable to do so within a reasonable time, and
there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed in his care. In addition to
the issues with respect to respondent’s ability to appropriately parent the minor children, the trial
court was concerned that respondent was still living with the children’s mother after her rights
had been terminated. Moreover, there had been allegations of alcohol and marijuana use, and
domestic violence in the home. The trial court stated that it made its decision with regret
because respondent tried very hard. The trial court stated that the issue was “whether within his
limitation he could adequately parent these children,” and the court did not err in finding that he
could not.
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
