In re B.S.

Mother (defendant) was the parent of a son, B.S., Mother’s third child. On the same day that B.S. was born, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (the department) (plaintiff) sought and received authorization to take custody of B.S. because Mother, who was mentally handicapped, and Father had two other children who had been removed from their custody due to physical abuse. Although Mother received intensive services to increase her parenting skills, she did not make sufficient progress. The department sought to terminate Mother’s parental rights, which a family court granted, citing Mother’s lack of progress and the best interests of B.S. Mother appealed, arguing that the family court should not have terminated her rights without considering her claims that her rights pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. The ADA sought to ensure equal opportunity for disabled persons in relation to work, public services, and the provision of public accommodations by private providers. Title II provided that a public entity could not deny services and programs to a qualified person with a disability based on the disability, and it provided the right to sue for violations. Because a mental handicap was a disability under the ADA, Mother argued, she was a qualified person who could take care of B.S. with assistance, thus qualifying her for accommodation. Mother argued that the department had discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disability while offering services designed to increase her parenting skills. The family court had criticized the department’s behavior toward Mother and Father for various reasons. Mother’s argument on appeal was essentially that the department (1) had a responsibility to offer Mother services that would aid reunification in a reasonable time; (2) failed to provide services that would be effective given Mother’s mental handicap; (3) discriminated against Mother in providing services, violating the ADA; and (4) therefore, the family court could not hold that Mother would not be able to parent B.S. within a reasonable time because any defect in her parenting skills was caused by the department. The appellate court rejected Mother’s fourth point.