IN RE CHRISTOPHER BONAROTI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER BONAROTI,
Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 25, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221191
Wayne Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 94-320801
CHRISTOPHER BONAROTI,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Zahra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order committing him to the custody of the Family
Independence Agency. We affirm.
Respondent was charged with multiple offenses in three petitions. In exchange for the
dismissal of a number of charges, respondent pleaded guilty to resisting and obstructing a police
officer and malicious destruction of property over $100. At the initial dispositional hearing, the
court deferred its ruling to allow respondent to show that a transfer to a different high school
would alleviate his problems. Some two months later a second dispositional hearing was held.
The record showed that respondent was suspended twice from his new high school, and his
academic performance was deficient. The court made respondent a temporary ward of the state,
and placed him with the Family Independence Agency.
On appeal, respondent argues that this placement was disproportionately severe
punishment. We disagree.
A trial court’s findings of fact at a juvenile proceeding are reviewed for clear error, while
the ultimate disposition is reviewed for abuse of discretion, using the principle of proportionality.
People v Brown, 205 Mich App 503; 504-505; 517 NW2d 806 (1994). Respondent asserts that
the disposition is disproportionate to the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender.
The record shows that the placement with the FIA was appropriate for the welfare of respondent
and for society. MCL 712A.18; MSA 27.3178(598.18). Respondent was warned to attend
-1-
school, and not get suspended. When respondent transferred schools to get out of trouble, he was
suspended twice within his first month. Respondent had failing grades, and was well below
grade level in reading. The court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent with the FIA
where he could not get the help he needed at home.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/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.
