In Re Rood

I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion, but do so on a narrow ground: given the failed and inadequate attempts at providing respondent notice in this case, the trial court clearly erred1 by using respondent’s failure to participate in the child protective proceedings against Laurie Kops as grounds for terminating his parental rights. I concur with the following rationale from the lead opinion that supports my conclusion:

[A]lthough respondent had actual notice of A.’s removal after the fact and received notice of one dispositional proceeding, respondent received no notice of the…