IN RE HOBBS & PRICE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of DEMICHAEL HOBBS, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 6, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 197639
Berrien Probate Court
LC No. 95-000025-NA
TIMOTHY ANDERSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN A. PRICE, a/k/a JOHN WILLIAMS, and
DARLANNE HOBBS,
Respondents.
Before: Corrigan, C.J., and Young and M.J. Talbot*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Anderson appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We
affirm.
The probate court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). The record revealed that Anderson is the child’s legal, but not biological father,
having signed the paternity papers for the child shortly after the proceedings in this matter began.
Anderson had little or no contact with the minor child for the first seven years of the child’s life, stating
that he was under the impression that the child’s mother was capable of raising him. Anderson did not
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
become involved in the child’s life until six months before the termination hearing. The first statement out
of Anderson’s mouth was allegedly an inquiry regarding how much money he would receive if he had
the child with him. At the time of the termination hearing, Anderson lived in an overcrowded, roach
infested house that, according to respondent, was slated to be condemned. Anderson has no parenting
experience and according to his caseworker, is unable to grasp simple parenting discipline concepts
such as a “time-out.” A psychological evaluation revealed that Anderson is borderline mentally
retarded and has a low probability of success with respect to child rearing. Anderson’s parenting class
reports indicate that respondent did not benefit from parenting classes and that it is unlikely that
respondent will ever be able to properly parent the child. Finally, Anderson has no one willing to
support his efforts to raise the child.
Further, Anderson failed to show that termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the
child’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 195833,
issued 3/25/97), slip op p 3.
Finally, Anderson was not denied effective assistance of counsel. In re Simon, 171 Mich App
443, 447; 431 NW2d 71 (1988); People v Barclay, 208 Mich App 670, 672; 528 NW2d 842
(1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Maura D. Corrigan
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
