In re Dearmon
303 Mich. App. 684
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- CPS filed a petition and obtained service on respondent seeking jurisdiction over her children and termination of parental rights; amended petitions followed but were not served.
- Adjudication trial began; during trial the court read from the December petition by mistake, though it had not been served, creating a potential due process issue.
- Evidence included jailhouse telephone recordings obtained after the initial petition, raising questions about postpetition evidence admissibility.
- The jury heard testimony that several domestic-violence incidents occurred and that the children witnessed at least one assault; this supported grounds for termination.
- The circuit court ultimately adjudicated jurisdiction and later terminated respondent’s parental rights under statutory grounds MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j), finding a risk and likelihood of harm to the children.
- The appeals challenged personal jurisdiction and postpetition evidence; the court affirmed termination, addressing both issues and noting amendments were not supplemental petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the December amendment was required for personal jurisdiction. | Petitioner | Respondent | Ample service existed via the original petition; amended petitions did not erase jurisdiction |
| Whether postpetition evidence was admissible at adjudication. | Petitioner | Respondent | Postpetition evidence relevant to impairment of care admissible if notice and rules followed |
| Whether the termination evidence satisfies the statutory grounds for termination. | Petitioner | Respondent | Clear and convincing evidence supported grounds and best interests findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444 (2009) (due process in child protective proceedings; notice and jurisdiction considerations)
- In re SZ, 262 Mich App 560 (2004) (personal jurisdiction and service requirements in child protection)
- In re Kozak, 92 Mich App 579 (1979) (strict construction of service requirements for termination petitions)
- In re Brown, 149 Mich App 529 (1986) (personal service provides notice and opportunity to defend; lack of service voids proceedings)
- In re Rood, 483 Mich 73 (2009) (due process in child protective proceedings and notice requirements)
- In re Brock, 442 Mich 101 (1993) (adjudicative phase; postpetition evidence must be shared to avoid surprise)
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (1993) (purpose of adjudication; protection from erroneous deprivation)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253 (2009) (clear and convincing standard; reviewing court gives deference to trial court)
- In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41 (1996) (standard for reviewing termination decisions)