IN RE JOHNSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JUSTIN D. KORBL, a/k/a JUSTIN
D. JOHNSON, ROBBIE MICHAEL KORBL, a/k/a
ROBBIE MICHAEL JOHNSON, and TORREY
ROBERT JOHNSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 11, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 217147
Wexford Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-001673-NA
BARBARA KORBL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GORDON JOHNS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JUSTIN D. KORBL, a/k/a JUSTIN
D. JOHNSON, ROBBIE MICHAEL KORBL, a/k/a
ROBBIE MICHAEL JOHNSON, and TORREY
ROBERT JOHNSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 217211
Wexford Circuit Court
Family Division
GORDON JOHNS,
-1
LC No. 96-001673-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BARBARA KORBL,
Respondent.
Before: Zahra, P.J., and White and Hoekstra, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I join with the majority in docket number 217147, but respectfully dissent from its decision in
docket number 217211. Unlike the majority, I believe that clear and convincing evidence was
introduced at trial to support the termination of respondent father’s parental rights to Justin and Robbie
Korbl pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and MCL
712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g).
Among the reasons upon which the trial court focused in deciding whether the evidence
supported termination was the inability of respondent father to parent these children independent of the
dominating and damaging influence of respondent mother. In essence, the trial court concluded that he
could not, or at least that he could not within a reasonable time, and therefore termination was required.
I believe that the record of respondent father’s behavior on this controlling point clearly supports the
decision to terminate. Both before and after the children became wards of the court, respondent father
demonstrated an inability to think and act independently of respondent mother. With regard to whether
the conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist under subsection (3)(c)(i) and whether
respondent father can provide proper care and custody under subsection (3)(g), this deference to
respondent mother mandates termination of respondent father’s parental rights.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
