IN RE KOBE/POWELL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of WILLIAM ROLLAND EVERETT
KOBE, III, TIFFIANEY KOBE, RANDALL
ALLEN POWELL, JR., and NIKI MARIE KOBE,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 22, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231598
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-025495-NA
WILLIAM ROLLAND EVERETT KOBE, II,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BECKY SUE KOBE,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and McDonald and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-father appeals as of right from the family court’s order terminating his
parental rights to the four minor children1 pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm.
Respondent-father’s sole issue on appeal is that there was not clear and convincing
evidence presented to support the statutory grounds for termination of his parental rights. The
evidence indicated that nearly two years passed from the filing of the initial petition to the
entering of the order terminating parental rights. In that time period, respondent-father never had
1
Respondent-father is the biological father of William, III and Tiffianey, and is the legal, but not
biological, father of Randall and Niki.
-1-
stable housing, had a very sporadic employment history and was earning only $200 a month as a
disc jockey, and never provided child support. He did not attend parenting classes or counseling,
and did not attend some of the review hearings. He had very little contact with the case workers
and his visitation was minimal. In fact, respondent-father had no contact with the children from
December 1998 until February 2000, and then not again until June and July 2000. During the
visitations, there was evidence that Tiffianey was fearful of her father and did not want to be near
him. Thus, respondent-father failed to fully comply with the case service plan as ordered by the
court.
Under these circumstances, the family court did not clearly err in finding that there was
clear and convincing evidence to warrant termination under subsection 19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions
leading to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time) and subsection 19b(3)(g) (parent, without
regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custody and there is no reasonable expectation of
the parent doing so within a reasonable time). In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Further, although not addressed by respondent-father, we agree with the
family court’s ruling that nothing in the record indicated that termination of respondent-father’s
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
