family service plan requires, among other things, that appellant submit to random drug tests, complete a parenting class, complete individual counseling with a CPS-approved therapist, maintain contact with Vega at least twice a month, engage in a psycho-social evaluation through the McCullough Center located in San Antonio, attend weekly NA/AA meetings, obtain and maintain employment and stable and appropriate housing, and complete a Midcoast drug assessment. Implementation of a family service plan by the Department is considered a reasonable effort to return a child to its parent if the parent has been given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the terms of the plan. See M.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 300 S.W.3d 305, 310-11 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); In the Int. of M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d at 505
holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary holding that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits may be an act of plan administration holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa holding that the human services department failed to make reasonable efforts and acted in bad faith when it disregarded the mothers efforts and rejected a favorable home study holding preparation and administration of service plan showed that department made reasonable efforts at reunification