IN RE NICOLE MARIE MCKENDRICK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NICOLE MARIE
MCKENDRICK, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
July 10, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281371
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-422835-NA
KATHERINE T. AKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MILTON ROBINSON and WILLIAM
MCKENDRICK,
Respondents.
Before: Owens, P.J., and O’Connell and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Katherine Akins appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that clear and convincing evidence supported
the statutory grounds for termination. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 351; 612
NW2d 407 (2000); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The principal
condition that led to the child’s removal, respondent’s lack of income and housing, still had not
been resolved approximately four years later. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, the record
discloses that the caseworkers repeatedly assisted respondent in her efforts to obtain suitable
housing. The caseworkers went well beyond merely providing referrals for housing, personally
making telephone calls, writing letters on respondent’s behalf, and driving respondent to
investigate housing. Although respondent claimed that she was unable to work because she was
completely disabled, she provided no evidence to verify her claim, and her applications for social
security benefits were denied. The trial court gave respondent numerous opportunities and
second chances to demonstrate that she could obtain appropriate income and housing, but she
-1-
failed to do so. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err in determining that termination
was warranted under § 19b(3)(g).
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354. Although
there was clearly a bond between respondent and the child, and the child enjoyed her visits with
respondent, the child had become increasingly ambivalent about returning to respondent because
of the uncertainty it would bring. Without any realistic expectation that respondent would be
able to provide a proper home within a reasonable time, the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was not contrary to the child’s best
interests. The child needed permanence and stability, and her needs must prevail over
respondent’s desire to parent her.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
