IN RE COATES/CONKLE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of WHITTANY LYNN COATES
and BRIANNA NICKOLE CONKLE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 27, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 278680
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 05-713873-NA
SABRINA NICKOLE CONKLE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Hoekstra and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In light of respondent’s plea to the supplemental petition, the trial court did not clearly err
in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing
evidence. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). Further, the trial court’s
best interests determination was not clearly erroneous. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). Respondent expressed little interest in Brianna; her
primary concern was to maintain her parental rights to Whittany. The evidence showed that
respondent and Whittany had a strong bond, although that bond had deteriorated due to the
suspension of visitation. Respondent and the child were both desirous of maintaining their
relationship. On the other hand, respondent had made little progress with the crucial elements of
the service plan, i.e., substance abuse treatment, housing, and income, over the year and a half of
court intervention. Respondent’s bond with Whittany did not outweigh her failure to overcome
the primary obstacles to reunification such that delaying permanency was appropriate. Because
the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not in the
child’s best interests, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
