|
No. 136849
| In re Ayden Rood, Minor. |
|
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Department of Human Services, |
|
Susan Kasley Sniegowski |
Petitioner-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Mason - Raven, M.) |
|
|
| Darroll Donald Rood, |
|
Jeffrey C. Nellis |
| Respondent-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioner-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Children's Law Section of the Michigan State Bar's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Darroll Rood was serving a jail sentence for domestic violence when the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition seeking jurisdiction of his daughter Ayden. The DHS petition, which was filed on March 20, 2006, stated that Rood was in jail and alleged that Ayden and her half-sister had been abandoned by their mother. A few days later, Rood, upon learning that Ayden had been placed in foster care, contacted a protective services worker, who gave him the phone number of Ayden’s foster care worker and advised Rood to call her to arrange visitation with Ayden. Rood gave the protective services worker his address and cell phone number, which she passed along to the foster care worker. Rood did not contact the foster care worker, however.
Rood appeared at a court hearing on June 8, 2006, where he provided the court with his contact information. But the court continued to serve notice of proceedings at one of Rood’s previous addresses. Ayden’s foster care worker once tried to reach Rood by phone, but called an outdated number instead of the one he provided at the court hearing. In December 2006, the foster care worker mailed copies of the updated service plans and her business card to Rood at the address he had given the court; the mailing was returned as undeliverable. On January 24, 2007, DHS filed a supplemental petition seeking termination of Rood’s parental rights; notice of a March 22, 2007 hearing on the petition was mailed to Rood at his last known address. The termination petition alleged that Rood had contributed to Ayden’s unsafe and neglectful environment, and that he had demonstrated a history of criminal conduct and instability, including five criminal convictions, two of which involved domestic violence and assault of Ayden’s mother in Ayden’s presence. Moreover, Rood had not paid child support, had not contacted the foster care worker, had failed to participate in any services to assist him in getting custody of Ayden, and had not contacted his daughter since she was placed in foster care, the DHS petition stated.
In May 2007, nearly 14 months after his first contact with the protective services worker, Rood contacted the foster care worker, who advised him that a termination petition had been filed and that he should immediately request appointment of an attorney. Rood appeared in court for a June 12, 2007 dispositional review hearing; a couple of days later, an attorney was appointed to represent Rood. Following an August 2007 trial, the family court held that DHS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Rood’s parental rights was appropriate under both MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (without intent, the parent failed to provide proper care and custody of the child) and (j) (the child was reasonably likely to be harmed if returned to the parent). Moreover, Rood had not shown terminating his parental rights was not in Ayden’s best interests, the court concluded. Rood appealed, and in a split unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals majority reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The appeals panel agreed with Rood that DHS had failed to make reasonable efforts to contact him and provide him with services, and that consequently, DHS had not proven the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The dissenting judge would have affirmed the family court’s termination ruling. DHS appeals.
Top of Page
|
