IN RE GIBBS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of A.E.S.G., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 18, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240056
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-366134-NA
JULIE GIBBS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GILBERT WHITE,
Respondent.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Jansen and R. J. Danhof*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). We reverse and remand.
Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the
order because of improper service of the petition to terminate parental rights. Whether a court
has personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law, which we review de novo. In re Terry,
240 Mich App 14, 20; 610 NW2d 563 (2000).
MCL 712A.12 requires personal service of a petition to terminate a respondent’s parental
rights to her child. The November 19, 2001, supplemental petition to terminate respondentappellant’s parental rights was not personally served on respondent, but was sent by regular mail
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
to her address.1 Both the trial court and the case worker had respondent’s current address, and
the case worker had regular contact with respondent. Moreover, although MCL 712A.13 allows
for alternative methods of service of process—and service by regular mail is not an alternative
method permitted by statute—the trial court is still required to first determine that personal
service is impracticable, which was not done here. In re Adair, 191 Mich App 710, 714; 478
NW2d 667 (1991). Failure to serve a termination petition on a respondent as statutorily required
is a jurisdictional defect that renders all proceedings in the trial court void. In re Atkins, 237
Mich App 249, 250-251; 602 NW2d 594 (1999). Lacking personal jurisdiction over respondentappellant, the trial court could not terminate her parental rights to the minor child. Respondentappellant’s presence at and participation in the termination hearing did not cure the jurisdictional
defect. In re Brown, 149 Mich App 529, 533-534, 541; 386 NW2d 577 (1986).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Robert J. Danhof
1
We note that because the child was a temporary court ward at the time that the supplemental
petition to terminate parental rights was filed, the court was still required to issue a new
summons and complaint as provided in MCL 712A.13. See MCL 712A.20; In re Atkins, 237
Mich App 249, 251; 602 NW2d 594 (1999).
-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.
