Due process; In re Rood; Service of process; MCL 712A.13; In re Lovitt; Summons requirement; MCR 3.920(B)(2)(b); Friend of the Court (FOC)

The court held that respondent-mother was denied due process because the DHHS did not comply with statutory service requirements, so the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and the termination order was void. The child was placed under successive guardianships with relatives, and petitioners later sought termination to allow adoption after the mother had no contact with the child and did not comply with the guardianship plan. The mother could not be located, so the trial court permitted alternate service by publication “contemporaneously with” efforts to locate her, and then proceeded with a combined adjudication and termination hearing in her absence after publication ran. On appeal, the court held that due process requires notice “‘reasonably calculated’” to apprise a parent of the action and an opportunity to be heard, and it ruled that alternate service cannot be ordered unless the trial court first determines reasonable efforts were made to locate the parent. It found the record showed only that counsel had contacted a process server and that the trial court “checked a box” stating service was impracticable without a factual basis. The court concluded the trial court “put the cart before the horse” by authorizing publication before reasonable efforts were completed. It emphasized that merely contacting a process server “without more, is not a reasonable effort,” and the record lacked evidence of follow-up steps such as contacting known relatives, the FOC, incarceration facilities, shelters, or treatment centers. The court concluded the failure to comply with the statutory requirements was a “jurisdictional defect” rendering the proceedings void, so it vacated the termination order and remanded.