IN RE KEMP MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EK and TK, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 5, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235280
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000731-NA
PHILLIP KEMP,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights. We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears the
burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350;
617 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that
persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is
mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id.,
355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., 356.
MCL 712A.19b(3) provides for termination of parental rights when
(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this
subchapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial
dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either
of the following:
(i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is
no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable
time considering the child’s age.
-1-
* * *
(g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
* * *
(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of
the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
There was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. Respondent took no steps to provide proper care and custody of the children.
When the children’s mother relinquished her parental rights, respondent was in prison and he did
not propose any alternative custody arrangement. The fact that respondent loved his daughters
was not sufficient to maintain his parental rights when he did not provide proper care and
custody for them.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
