IN RE AMERIO MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DAMION AMERIO and
ANASTASIA AMERIO, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 27, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 287615
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 07-001154-NA
07-001155-NA
LINDA AMERIO,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GREGORY AMERIO,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), (j), and (k)(i). We
affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to secure her presence for
the termination trial. We disagree. An incarcerated parent is not entitled, as a matter of absolute
right, to be present at the dispositional hearing of a proceeding to terminate parental rights. In re
Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 48; 501 NW2d 231 (1993). Instead, a court must balance “the
private interest at stake, the incremental risk of an erroneous deprivation thereof in the absence
of the procedure demanded, and the government's interest in avoiding the burden the procedure
would carry.” Vasquez, supra at 47.
There is simply no evidence that respondent-appellant was prejudiced by her absence.
While it is true that respondent-appellant’s attorney was allowed to withdraw at the beginning of
the hearing, the truth was that respondent-appellant had absolutely no interest in participating in
the case. The children were removed from her care in June 2007. Respondent-appellant
-1-
appeared at the initial preliminary hearing, but she then failed to participate in any subsequent
hearings. She made no effort to comply with services, nor did she attempt to visit the children.
Her only contact was a December 2007 telephone call to the worker to report that she was living
in Texas, that she wanted the children back, but that she was not interested in participating in
services. It was later discovered that, in February 2008, respondent-appellant was in prison in
Alabama, awaiting sentencing on federal fraud charges. She received personal service of the
termination proceedings and also received information from her attorney, but she took no steps
to participate in the termination hearing. While MCR 2.004 states that a trial court must order
telephone participation in termination proceedings when the parent is incarcerated within the
custody of the Department of Corrections, this Court has specifically held that MCR 2.004
addresses only the Michigan Department of Corrections and therefore, does not apply to parents
incarcerated outside of the State of Michigan. In re BAD, 264 Mich App 66, 71; 690 NW2d 287
(2004). Because respondent-appellant’s presence at trial, in person or by phone, would not have
changed the results of the trial, any deprivation of her due process rights was harmless.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
