IN RE MARQUISE DIXON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARQUISE DIXON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 1, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252222
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000661-NA
RAFIKI DIXON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Wilder and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his parent rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.2114(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The principal conditions that led to adjudication were the mother’s
homelessness and inability or desire to care for the child and respondent’s imprisonment. The
evidence established that respondent failed to comply with the court’s orders contained in the
parent-agency agreement, was abusing drugs, did not supply financial support, and had two new
pending charges against him, domestic violence and simple assault.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo; 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). After respondent’s release from prison, respondent only visited his son
six of the scheduled thirteen visits. The evidence showed that respondent’s missed visits were
hurting the child’s self-esteem and that the child was developing appropriately in his foster care
home where he had resided for sixteen of the twenty-two months he had been a ward of the
court. In addition, respondent had not seen the child for months before the trial and did not
attend the trial despite his attorney’s statement that he had been served with notice. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
