IN RE MARCELLEL ROLAND MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARCELLEL ROLAND, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 4, 2005
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 261663
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-399576-NA
LATOYA TOCCARA ROLAND,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Jansen and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (i), and (j). This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm.
This Court reviews decisions terminating parental rights for clear error. MCR 3.977(J).
Clear error occurs when, although there is evidence to support a decision, the whole body of
evidence leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The decision must be more than
just maybe or probably wrong. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent’s parental rights to her two oldest children were previously terminated after
she failed to complete a treatment plan. Later, her parental rights to her third child were
terminated after she again failed to complete a treatment plan. Respondent testified that her
parental rights to her older three children were terminated because of her substance abuse and
housing issues. This minor child was born testing positive for marijuana, respondent admitted
using marijuana during her pregnancy, and respondent still had unstable housing and could not
support herself financially. The minor child was placed in foster care upon leaving the hospital
and petitioner sought immediate termination of respondent’s parental rights.
Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that petitioner established the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing
-1-
evidence or in finding that the minor child’s best interests did not preclude termination of
respondent’s parental rights.
We affirm.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
