IN RE MARCUS NATHANIAL NOBLES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M. N. N., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
December 29, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293516
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-752488-NA
ROCHELLE LA’NAE BURKS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Hoekstra and Whitbeck, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to the minor child
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
Clear and convincing evidence existed to support the trial court’s decision to terminate
respondent’s parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(3); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). The minor child was removed from respondent’s care after respondent left him with
Linda McDonald, a nonrelative. Not only was McDonald without legal authority to have the
minor child treated in the event of an emergency, but her home was found to be unsuitable.
When the protective services worker contacted respondent to advise her that the minor child was
going to be taken into protective custody unless she provided a plan for him, respondent offered
no solution and made no effort to retrieve the minor child.
Because she admitted to marijuana use, respondent could not visit with the minor child
until she provided at least one negative drug screen. Respondent did not provide any screens
until five months after the minor child came into foster care. Respondent was also advised that
she had to attend a psychological examination, but she did not do so until after the termination
petition had already been filed. Respondent blamed the workers for the fact that she did not
comply with the PAA (Parent Agency Agreement). Much of the testimony at trial revolved
around whether respondent had ever received a hard copy of the PAA, but respondent admitted
that she spoke with case manager Velma Coleman in January 2009 and that Coleman advised her
of what she needed to do in order to regain custody. Nevertheless, respondent did absolutely
nothing for nearly three months, and attended none of the hearings from October 22, 2008, until
March 13, 2009. Even in the face of respondent’s total apathy, the referee continuously gave
respondent the benefit of the doubt, adjourning the best interests hearing in order to allow a
-1-
psychological reevaluation and to allow respondent to visit with the minor child. Respondent
failed to attend the evaluation and then advised Coleman that she would be “out of town” until
July 5, 2009. At the time of the termination hearing, respondent was still unemployed and,
although she indicated that she had suitable housing, she never allowed Coleman to inspect the
home. There was simply no reason to believe that respondent could provide the minor child with
proper care or custody within a reasonable amount of time.
The trial court also did not err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was in the minor child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). There was no evidence that
respondent and the minor child shared any sort of a bond, and the evidence established that
respondent could not meet his basic needs. The minor child was entitled to permanence and
stability.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
-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.
