IN RE COREY M DIBELL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of COREY M. DIBELL, Minor
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 6, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201904
Barry Juvenile Court
LC No. 90-003251-NA
CORINE D. HOBERT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD E. DIBELL, JR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of DUSTIN J. KLINE, Minor
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201905
Barry Juvenile Court
LC No. 90-003249-NA
CORINE D. HOBERT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DONALD KLINE,
-1
Respondent.
__________________________________________
In the Matter of COREY M. DIBELL, Minor
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 202156
Barry Juvenile Court
LC No. 90-003251-NA
RICHARD E. DIBELL, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CORINE D. HOBERT,
Respondent.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Murphy and Reilly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents Corine Hobert and Richard Dibell, Jr. appeal as of
right from an opinion and order terminating their parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii)
and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(b)(i), (b)(ii) and (g). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in terminating respondent Hobert’s parental rights under §§
19b(3)(b)(ii) and (g), or in terminating respondent Dibell’s parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) and (g).
MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Although respondent
Dibell claims he was not given adequate time to prove his parenting abilities, the relevant inquiry under §
19b(3)(g) is whether he would be able to provide proper care and custody within a “reasonable time”
considering the age of the child. In this case, the evidence was clear and convincing that respondent
Dibell would not be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time, if at all.
Finally, while the permanency planning hearing statute prescribes circumstances under which a
probate court must order initiation of termination proceedings, MCL 712A.19a(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19a)(5), that is not to say that the probate court lacks the authority to order initiation of
termination proceedings within its discretion at a dispositional review hearing conducted in accordance
-2
with MCL 712A.19(3); MSA 27.3178(598.19)(3). In any event, petitioner herein clearly had the
authority to file a petition requesting termination after the
-3
dispositional review hearing independent of any direction of the court, MCR 5.974(A)(2); MCL
712A.19b(1); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(1), and petitioner in fact filed such a petition consistent with
that authority. Not only did petitioner not object to the initiation of termination proceedings, the
caseworker in charge of the case expressly recommended at the termination hearing that respondents’
parental rights be terminated. Thus, it is clear that petitioner was not opposed to termination. There is
no dispute that respondent Hobert timely received the required notice of the termination petition and
hearing. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the juvenile court was not without authority to
terminate respondent’s parental rights upon finding, as it did, that one or more of the statutory grounds
for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
-4
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.
