IN RE YOUNG MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTINA JOY YOUNG and
MARQUIS GREGORY DANIEL YOUNG, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 29, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 221995
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-315020
MARNICE YOUNG,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
THOMAS YOUNG,
Respondent.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant, Marnice Young, appeals to this Court by way of grant of her application
for delayed leave to appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) and (i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(h) and (i). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455 NW2d 161
(1989). Respondent-appellant was convicted of manslaughter and, on March 6, 1997, sentenced to six
to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The evidence below suggested respondent-appellant had mental health
and substance abuse problems that precluded her from providing proper care for her children prior to
her incarceration. Respondent-appellant refused treatment for the problems and, despite her youngest
-1
child being born with a positive drug screen for cocaine,1 has denied ever having a substance abuse
problem. Given these circumstances, even if respondent-appellant becomes eligible for early release
from prison and is released within two years of the permanent custody hearing, there is significant
evidence the children will be deprived a “normal home” for a period exceeding two years. See In re
Dougherty, 236 Mich App 240, 247; 599 NW2d 772 (1999).2 The evidence suggests respondent
appellant has not provided for the children’s proper care and custody and will be unable to do so within
a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. Consequently, the juvenile court did not clearly err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to both children under § 19b(3)(h).
Furthermore, respondent-appellant’s parental rights to six younger children were previously
terminated based on her inability to provide proper care due to her incarceration, failure to visit with the
children, failure to attend court ordered psychiatric and substance abuse therapy, and failure to remain
drug free. Prior efforts to rehabilitate respondent-appellant have been unsuccessful. Consequently, the
juvenile court did not clearly err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to Christina and
Marquis under § 19b(3)(i).
There is not clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, __ Mich __; __ NW2d __
(Docket No. 112528, issued 7/5/00), slip op pp 14, 27. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not clearly
err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
1
That particular child is not subject to this appeal.
2
Evidence that respondent-appellant’s sister has cared for Christina and Marquis and provided a
nurturing environment for the children does not alter our conclusion that respondent-appellant’s
incarceration and refusal to take responsibility and to receive treatment for her personal problems
strongly suggests the children will be deprived a “normal home” for a period exceeding two years.
-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.
