# In Re Rood

> Michigan Supreme Court · April 2, 2009 · 483 Mich. 73

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503664

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re ROOD
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 2, 2009
- **Citations:** 483 Mich. 73; 763 N.W.2d 587
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weaver
- **Judges:** Cavanagh, Weaver, Markham, Corrigan, Hathaway
- **Cited by:** 356 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503664

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "the trial court clearly erred by determining that the DHS had shown that the statutory grounds for termination were established" when the court and the DHS failed to "fulfill their statutory duties and make reasonable efforts to reunite respondent and his child"
- noting that the trial court’s and DHHS’s “compliance with the relevant laws and regulations was sorely lacking,” describing the DHHS’s lackluster efforts to involve the respondent, and noting that the trial court “excused” the DHHS’s “failures of notice and communication” even…
- stating that, as a result of the respondent's inability to participate, "there is a `hole' in the evidence on which the trial court based its termination decision"
- discussing MCL 722.638(1)(a)(i) and stating that “[a] parent abandons, or ‘deserts,’ his child if he is absent for more than 91 days and has not sought custody of his child. MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii).”
- noting that a court may not terminate parental rights on the basis of "circumstances and missing information directly attributable to respondent's lack of meaningful prior participation"

## Opinion text

WEAVER, J.
(concurring in part). I agree only with the result of the lead opinion, specifically, that the Court of Appeals correctly remanded the case to give the respondent “a fair opportunity to participate.” In re Rood, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 12, 2008 (Docket No. 280597), at 5.
Further, I agree with Justice YOUNG, post at 130 n 13, that because this case is resolved both substantively and procedurally on the basis of Michigan law, the lead opinion, expressing no restraint, unnecessarily attempts to resolve federal questions concerning Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 670 et seq.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503664. Public record. Not legal advice.