Background
The Department of Health and Human Services sought removal of four children in September 2024 based on allegations concerning the father and another mother, including a child’s burns, inadequate medical follow-up, drug use, and homelessness. The petition made no allegations against respondent-mother, who lived in New Mexico, and stated only that the department had unsuccessfully tried to contact her by telephone.
After jurisdictional and tribal issues delayed the case, the department filed an amended petition alleging matters against respondent-mother in September 2025. At adjudication, a caseworker testified that she had discussed the petition by phone and sent it by encrypted email, but acknowledged that respondent-mother had never been personally served. Her counsel objected on that ground. The trial court proceeded, exercised jurisdiction over the children, and entered an initial dispositional order.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication order and remanded. It held that the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over respondent-mother because the statutory service requirements in MCL 712A.13 were not strictly followed.
Actual notice, appearances at some proceedings, and receipt of the amended petition by email did not cure the defect. Respondent-mother was neither personally served nor served through a statutorily authorized alternative method. Unlike cases where prior valid service established jurisdiction or where attempted statutory service was impossible despite reasonable efforts, there had been no attempts to reach her at her last-known address, and the original petition contained no allegations against her.
Key Takeaways
- In child-protection proceedings, statutory notice and service requirements must be strictly followed to establish personal jurisdiction over a parent.
- Actual notice and participation do not cure defective service when counsel timely objects on the record.
- Emailing a petition is not a substitute for personal service or authorized alternative service under MCL 712A.13.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a trial court cannot adjudicate a parent’s rights in a child-protection case without first obtaining personal jurisdiction through statutory service. Agencies and courts must ensure service is completed through the methods the statute permits, particularly when a parent lives outside Michigan.