IN RE O'NEAL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY FRANCES O’NEAL,
KELLY LYNN O’NEAL and MARK ANTHONY
O’NEAL, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 4, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
ERIC M. O’NEAL,
No. 217464
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-339381
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROSE MARIE MERSIER, a/k/a ROSE MARIE
MILLER,
Respondent.
Before: Saad, P.J., and McDonald and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent argues that reversal is required for failure to provide proper service of notice of the
termination proceeding. We disagree.
A failure to provide notice of a termination proceeding as required by statute, MCL 712A.12;
MSA 27.3178(598.12), is a jurisdictional defect that renders all proceedings in the trial court void. In
re Adair, 191 Mich App 710, 713-714; 478 NW2d 667 (1991). Although personal service of
process is generally required, MCL 712A.13; MSA 27.3178(598.13) allows for alternative methods of
service if the court determines that personal service is impracticable. In re Adair, supra at 714. Here,
personal service was attempted at respondent’s last known address, but was unsuccessful. Service was
then effectuated both by certified mail, which was received and signed for by respondent’s mother, and
by publication.
The record reveals that personal service was impracticable because respondent’s whereabouts
were unknown. Respondent had not had any contact with the caseworker or visited with the children
since January 1997, and the caseworker had been unsuccessful in locating respondent through a
computer check, or by questioning either the children or respondent’s mother, with whom respondent
was believed to be living.
Respondent asserts that the caseworker should have checked to see if he had a driver’s license
or state identification card, but he does not assert, nor is there any indication in the record, that these
methods would have revealed his whereabouts. In any event, the record indicates that respondent
nonetheless had actual notice of the termination hearing because he telephoned the court on the date of
the hearing to indicate that he would not be attending because of swollen feet. Under these
circumstances there is no basis for believing that the court could have accomplished more had
respondent been personally served. See In re Mayfield, 198 Mich App 226, 233-235; 497 NW2d
578 (1993).
It is noteworthy that respondent’s parental rights were terminated, in part, pursuant to
§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) (desertion), a ground that was clearly supported by clear and convincing evidence.
MCR 5.974; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
