Background
Child-protective proceedings began after the father’s stepdaughter disclosed that he had sexually abused her in the family home when she was between 13 and 15 years old. The father was later convicted by a jury of first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct. The Department of Health and Human Services alleged that his conduct placed his four minor children at substantial risk of harm and made their home or environment unfit.
Following a separate adjudication trial, a jury found grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). The trial court placed the children with their mother and later ruled that DHHS did not have to provide reunification services because the father’s criminal sexual conduct constituted an aggravated circumstance. Although DHHS sought termination, the trial court had not yet conducted a complete termination hearing or terminated the father’s parental rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the jurisdictional and dispositional order. It rejected the father’s claim that the trial court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide a recorder or other memory accommodation during the adjudication trial. Under controlling Michigan precedent, termination-related court proceedings are not “services, programs, or activities” covered by the relevant ADA provision. The court also noted that the father had acknowledged the requested accommodation would not matter if trial ended that day, as it did.
The panel also found no plain error in DHHS’s failure to offer disability-modified reunification services. Because DHHS sought termination based on aggravated circumstances, no service plan was required and its duty to provide reunification services or corresponding accommodations never arose. The father also failed to identify any modified service that would have improved the outcome.
The father’s ineffective-assistance claims likewise failed. Counsel was not ineffective for omitting a meritless ADA request, and the remaining claims concerning cross-examination, defense witnesses, and the jury’s access to the criminal-case register of actions were insufficiently briefed and deemed abandoned. In any event, the father did not identify helpful questions or testimony, establish deficient performance, or show a reasonable probability of a different result given his criminal convictions.
Key Takeaways
- A parent may not invoke the ADA as a defense based on a trial court’s failure to provide accommodations in child-protective termination proceedings under controlling Michigan precedent.
- When aggravated circumstances eliminate DHHS’s obligation to provide reunification services, no related duty to make disability-based modifications to those services arises.
- An ineffective-assistance claim requires specific evidence of deficient performance and prejudice; conclusory assertions about unasked questions, uncalled witnesses, or admitted exhibits are insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between a court’s adjudicative proceedings and DHHS-provided reunification services for purposes of ADA obligations. It also confirms that aggravated circumstances based on criminal sexual conduct can eliminate the requirement for both a service plan and disability-related modifications to reunification services.
The ruling affirmed the court’s jurisdiction and placement order, not a termination of parental rights. The father’s parental rights remained intact because the trial court had not yet completed the statutory-grounds and best-interests phases of a termination hearing.