Opinion by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Crooks, Prosser, Ziegler, and Gableman.
¶83 ... The specific services are found in the orders' direction to the Department to provide supervision, services and case management to the children and family coupled with the orders' detailed conditions that Tanya and William must meet for the children's return to them. Those detailed conditions implicitly required the Department to provide services necessary to assist the parents in meeting the court ordered conditions for the return of their children. We further conclude that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that it "ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court."Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley.
¶94 This case should be decided against the parents on the ground of forfeiture. ... Here the parents and the Department worked under the terms of the dispositional orders for over four years, without any parental objection to the contents of the orders.