IN RE ROBINSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AUDRA ROBINSON and
MICHAEL ROBINSON, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 271770
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-115396-NA
MICHAEL D. ROBINSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
VALERIE THOMAS,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over
him because he was not personally served with the amended petition for temporary custody,
which contained allegations against him, or with the petition for termination of parental rights.
Because respondent-appellant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, our review is
limited to plain error affecting his substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764;
597 NW2d 130 (1999); In re Osborne (On Remand, After Remand), 237 Mich App 597, 606;
603 NW2d 824 (1999).
The lower court record does not contain evidence that respondent-appellant was served
with the amended petition, but the same allegations were contained in the petition to terminate.
Consequently, respondent-appellant’s ability to defend against them was not hampered.
Moreover, respondent-appellant was in contact with the foster care worker after the filing of the
-1-
amended petition, and was aware of the court’s jurisdiction over his children and their placement
outside their mother’s home.
Further, we find that the trial court properly obtained personal jurisdiction over
respondent-appellant where he was served with the termination petition by publication. Despite
his argument to the contrary, the record indicates that personal service was attempted at
respondent-appellant’s last known address by a sheriff’s deputy and that the foster care worker
inquired of his whereabouts through four relatives or acquaintances, as checked the county jail,
Friend of Court records, the phone book, and other places of record in her effort to locate him.
Substituted service is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. In re SZ, 262 Mich App 560,
565; 686 NW2d 520 (2004). Accordingly, no plain error occurred.
Respondent-appellant also argues that MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) was not established by
clear and convincing evidence. The foster care worker assigned to the case was not available to
testify and another worker testified regarding the contents of the case file. Nonetheless,
subsection (a)(ii) was established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent-appellant did
not contact the foster care worker from August 2005 to the date of the termination trial, a period
well in excess of 91 days. He did not have a parent-agency agreement and did not attend any of
the hearings in this matter. There was no record of any visits between respondent-appellant and
his children, and he was not mentioned in the foster care worker’s last report to the court. Based
on the substitute foster care worker’s testimony, the trial court did not clearly err in finding clear
and convincing evidence that respondent-appellant abandoned his children for 91 or more days.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The trial court also did not clearly err in its best interests determination. Despite the
substitute foster care worker’s lack of personal knowledge and inability to express an opinion
regarding best interests, there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was not
contrary to the children’s best interests. The children were in foster care for over two years, had
little relationship with respondent-appellant, and respondent-appellant was not working on a
parent-agency agreement. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err in its best interests
determination. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We affirm.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
