IN RE DOBBS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of B.D, A.D, D.D, E.D. and D.D,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238693
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-067300
DAVID DOBBS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BERNICE DOBBS-WATSON,
Respondent.
In the Matter of B.B., A.D., D.D., E.D., and D.D.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 238720
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-067300
v
BERNICE DOBBS-WATSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID DOBBS,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial
court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence as to both parents. MCR 5.974(I); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that
termination of respondents-appellants’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to the
children.
Additionally, respondent-appellant David Dobbs was not denied the effective assistance
of counsel. His counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of
reasonableness so as to deprive him of a fair trial. In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 198; ____
NW2d ___ (2002). David Dobbs would have been subject to compliance with a parent-agency
agreement pursuant to the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction based on Bernice DobbsWatson’s admissions regardless of whether his attorney had made objections at the adjudication
proceeding. See In re CR, supra at 202-203. His failure to comply with the parent-agency
agreement, not his attorney’s performance, caused the negative outcome of the child protective
proceeding.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
