IN RE RONNIE DURON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RONNIE DURON, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 29, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 226102
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000712-NA
MARIA DURON,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
RONALD LUBBERS,
Respondent.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sawyer and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order taking jurisdiction over the minor child and making him
a temporary ward of the court. We affirm.
A petition was authorized asserting that the child came within the provisions of §2(b) of the
Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.2(b); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b), because he showed signs of developmental
delay, respondent failed to follow professional recommendations to remedy the problems, the child
suffered from dental disease due to excessive use of a bottle, respondent suffered from mental illness
that may affect her parenting, and she denied knowledge of the identity of the child’s father. After a
two-day hearing, the court found that the allegations in the petition were established. The court took
jurisdiction over the child, and placed him under court wardship.
To acquire jurisdiction in a child protective proceeding, the factfinder must determine by a
preponderance of the evidence that the child comes within the statutory requirements. In re Brock, 442
-1
Mich 101, 109; 499 NW2d 752 (1993). MCL 712A.2(b)(1); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b)(1) provides
the court with jurisdiction over a juvenile whose parent, when able to do so, n
eglects or refuses to
provide proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his or her
health or morals, who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or her mental well-being, who is
abandoned, or who is without proper custody or guardianship.
The evidence presented at the hearing supports the court’s finding of jurisdiction. The evidence
shows that respondent has failed to provide proper care for her child, and that although there may not
be a risk of physical harm, there is a risk to his mental well-being. Given the testimony of the medical
and psychological experts and respondent’s own testimony, the court could find by a preponderance of
the evidence that the jurisdictional requirement was met. Brock, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
