IN RE RAYMOND GONZALES AND ARTURO LEDESMA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RAYMOND GONZALES and
ARTURO LEDESMA, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 9, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212671
Midland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-010029 NA
LISA GONZALES and LARRY LEDESMA,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a family court order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii),
(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Relying on In re Bechard, 211 Mich App 155; 535 NW2d 220 (1995), respondent Ledesma
contends that the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction over the minor child on the basis of
respondent Gonzales’ “consent” to jurisdiction. We disagree. This case is factually distinguishable from
In re Bechard, in which the court assumed jurisdiction on the basis of the “consent” of the respondent’s
wife, who was not a party to the proceeding and was not alleged to have neglected or abused the minor
children. Here, the court assumed jurisdiction over the children on the basis of respondent Gonzales’
plea of admission to allegations involving herself, and which provided a sufficient basis for the court to
exercise jurisdiction over the children. Furthermore, unlike In re Bechard, an order of adjudication was
entered in this case from which respondent Ledesma could have appealed the taking of jurisdiction. He
did not do so and may not now collaterally attack the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. In re Hatcher,
443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993).
-1
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331; 445 NW2d
161 (1989). Further, respondents failed to show that termination of their parental rights was clearly not
in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19(b)(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith,
222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
