IN RE HAMILTON/MOSLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAMARIA DNAE HAMILTON
and DASHAUN EDWARD MOSLEY, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 4, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293488
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-053618-NA
JOHN THOMAS HAMILTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ARGOLA JUNE
VINCENT,
MOSLEY
and
DAVID
Respondents.
Before: MURPHY, C.J., and SAWYER and HOEKSTRA, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent John Thomas Hamilton1 appeals as of right the order of the trial court
terminating his parental rights to his minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i),
(g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent first contends that the notice of the August 14, 2007, preliminary hearing was
defective. We disagree. Under MCR 3.965(B)(1), the trial court must determine whether the
parent has been notified of the preliminary hearing. In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 94; 763 NW2d
587 (2009). The trial court may proceed with a preliminary hearing in the absence of a parent if
notice has been given or if the court finds that a reasonable attempt to give notice was made.
MCR 3.965(B)(1).
1
Because only respondent Hamilton has appealed, the use of “respondent” refers only to him
throughout this opinion.
-1-
In this case, at the preliminary hearing the trial court noted respondent’s absence and
inquired about what efforts had been made to notify respondent of the hearing. The protective
services investigator testified that she had provided written notice of the hearing to respondent
the previous day at his last known address as provided to the trial court, and had placed the
notice in the mailbox at that address, but that the envelope was incorrectly addressed to “David”
Hamilton. Respondent does not contend that he did not receive the notice, nor does he contend
that he did not live at that address, nor does he contend that he was confused by the incorrect
name on the notice. We agree with the trial court that though imperfect, a reasonable attempt to
give notice was made.
Moreover, respondent has identified no harm arising from his absence at the preliminary
hearing; thus, reversal related to any defect is not warranted. MCR 2.613(A). Respondent’s
attorney was present at the preliminary hearing and no determinations were made by the trial
court at the preliminary hearing that adversely affected respondent’s rights. Though a tentative
decision was made to place the children with their maternal great-aunt, the trial court specifically
stated that it was not excluding respondent as a possible custodian for the children and would
await further investigation by petitioner regarding the appropriateness of respondent as a
placement for the children. Respondent attended the next two hearings before the trial court and
was only disregarded as a possible placement for the children when he failed to participate in
further proceedings before the trial court and in the parent agency agreement. Under the facts of
this case, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that a reasonable attempt to give notice was
made, and any error that may have occurred was harmless.
We also reject respondent’s contention that the trial court erred in determining that
petitioner had made reasonable efforts to provide services to respondent. When a child is
removed from a parent’s custody, the agency charged with the care of a child is required to
report to the trial court the efforts made to rectify the conditions that led to the removal of the
child. See In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 542; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). Before the trial court
enters an order of disposition, it is required to state whether reasonable efforts have been made to
prevent the child’s removal from the home or to rectify the conditions that caused the child to be
removed from the home. MCL 712A.18f(1). Services are not mandated in all situations, but the
statute requires the agency to justify its decision not to provide services. In re Terry, 240 Mich
App 14, 26 n 4; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). This Court has suggested that to successfully claim lack
of reasonable efforts, a respondent must establish that he or she would have fared better if the
agency had offered the services in question. See In re Fried, 266 Mich App at 543.
In this case, numerous services were offered to, and rejected by, respondent. Petitioner
offered to provide respondent with parenting time, parenting classes, and domestic violence
counseling. Respondent argues that the agency should not have offered him domestic violence
counseling and substance abuse testing and assessment, but instead should have provided
assistance with employment and housing. Substance abuse services were offered, however,
because respondent’s psychological evaluation indicated marijuana dependency. Similarly,
domestic violence counseling was recommended because there were reports that respondent had
engaged in domestic violence and sexual acts in front of another child in the family.
Assistance with housing and employment understandably were not offered because
respondent represented to the foster care worker that he had already obtained employment and
housing. Thereafter, respondent discontinued his contact with the agency and failed to respond
-2-
to communications from the foster care worker. In light of the numerous services that were
offered to respondent, it cannot be said respondent would have fared better with another
approach, nor can it be said that the trial court clearly erred in finding that reasonable efforts
were made to rectify the conditions that led to the removal of the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-3-
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.
