IN RE OWENS/MARCH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SAFARI MARNIQUE OWENS
and RYLICIA UNIQUE MARCH, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 19, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 270955
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-003036-NA
ROBERT MARCH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ALISHA WILSON and BARRY OWENS,
Respondents.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Smolenski and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Robert March, who is the putative father of Rylicia March, appeals as of
right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to Rylicia under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent does not dispute the trial court’s determination that the statutory grounds for
termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. The crux of his argument is that
petitioner was negligent in failing to timely ascertain his whereabouts after the neglect petition
was filed. Further, he asserts that once petitioner learned that he was imprisoned in Missouri, it
should have contacted him to advise him of the pendency of the proceedings and to determine
what services were available to him in prison, or offer him services. Respondent fails to cite any
authority in support of these contentions and, therefore, the issue may be deemed abandoned.
Flint City Council v State of Michigan, 253 Mich App 378, 393 n 2; 655 NW2d 604 (2002).
We note that respondent does not raise any defects in the manner of service of the
original petition, see MCR 3.920(B)(2)(b) and (C); MCR 3.921(C), and it is undisputed that he
received notice of and appeared for the hearing on the supplemental petition. Respondent does
not indicate what services could have been offered while he was in prison in another state. Even
-1-
if some services could have been offered, respondent has never met Rylicia and would not be
able to meet her for at least another year, and even then would have to develop a relationship
with her before reunification could even be considered. Thus, regardless of respondent’s
prospects as a parent, he was not capable of assuming custody of the child within a reasonable
time given her age. The trial court’s order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/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.
