IN RE AVERY ANTHONY POLL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AVERY ANTHONY POLL,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 16, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 285044
Osceola Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-004382-NA
TAMRA POLL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent mother appeals as of right from an initial dispositional order. We vacate the
court’s dispositional order, reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
On appeal, the mother argues that the trial court had no authority to proceed to
disposition where the sole basis for assuming jurisdiction over the minor child was the no-contest
plea of the child’s father. We agree. The only reference to the child’s father in the original
petition was in paragraph three, which stated the following: “Tamra reported that William
Anderson has a lengthy criminal history and mental health issues. This has not been verified as
Tamra has not provided sufficient information regarding William to complete a background
check, and locate or notify William.” The father’s attorney indicated that the father would be
pleading no contest to the petition “based on the fact that there’s no allegations [sic] contained in
the petition regarding him.” The father pleaded no contest based on lack of information.
The trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the minor child because the petition
contained no allegations of wrongdoing against the child’s father, whose plea was the basis for
assuming jurisdiction. In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 670-671; 747 NW2d 547 (2008).
Allegations against a parent cannot be inferred, but must be specifically alleged in the petition.
Id. There were no allegations that the father in this case was guilty of negligence or wrongdoing,
other than hearsay relating the mother’s statements that the child’s father had a criminal history
and mental health issues. The father, who had not seen the child since he was an infant,
acknowledged having no information about the child or the allegations of the petition. The plea
of a non-respondent parent does not give the court jurisdiction over the child. Id.
-1-
Because reversal is warranted, we decline to address respondent mother’s remaining
issue.
The dispositional order is vacated. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
