IN RE KOBE RAGEN CAMPBELL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KOBE RAGEN CAMPBELL,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254715
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-016824
CRANSTON CAMPBELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KELLI STIFFLER,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from the trial court order
terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in determining that the statutory grounds for termination
of parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The minor child was removed from his
mother at birth after testing positive for cocaine, and her parental rights were terminated at the
initial disposition. The conditions leading to adjudication to which respondent-appellant
admitted were his financial inability to care for the minor child, a large child support arrearage
for another child, and an outstanding felony warrant for his arrest in Illinois. Other conditions of
adjudication included respondent-appellant’s unstable housing and occasional cocaine use.
Respondent-appellant complied with many aspects of his parent/agency agreement. He worked
odd jobs, but during the entire course of the proceedings he did not show any intention of
obtaining stable employment. He had a room at his mother’s home, but the evidence showed
that he stayed with others as well, and never established a stable residence. He had not resolved
his outstanding felony warrant for several years prior to the child’s birth, and it caused him to
-1-
lose disability benefits and become ineligible for much needed financial assistance in Michigan.
The trial court was correct in finding that there was not clear and convincing evidence that
respondent-appellant was still abusing drugs and that his child support arrearage did not warrant
termination. However, it was also correct in finding that his lack of stable housing, lack of stable
income, and outstanding warrant established the grounds for termination.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence showed that the minor child recognized
respondent-appellant and that there was a type of bond, but the evidence did not show that the
bond was so strong that termination was clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. Although
respondent-appellant had a large extended family willing to assist him in parenting the child, the
trial court correctly focused on the instability, uncertainty, and impermanence the child would
face if respondent-appellant were his primary caretaker and controlled his custody.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
