IN RE DUARTE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JEREMIAH D. DUARTE and
NATHANIEL DUARTE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 30, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227509
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 90-002321-NA
DANIEL DUARTE and LINDA DUARTE,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Doctoroff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from an order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j), (k)(iii) and
(k)(v); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j), (k)(iii) and (k)(v). We
affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
While we are not convinced that termination was warranted under ยง 19b(3)(k)(v), the
circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the remaining statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent father acknowledged that he broke the leg of one of his
sons while twisting the child around in anger. Though it was the goal of petitioner and the court
to reunite the family upon a showing that respondents could provide proper care and custody for
their children, respondents failed to comply with the parent-agency agreement. They did not
attend counseling and did not consistently visit with the children, missing at least fifty percent of
the visits. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents' parental rights was
clearly not in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19(b)(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re
-1-
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the court did not err in terminating
respondents' parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/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.