IN RE DILLON MICHAEL RANSBERGER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of N.E.R., Minor.
UNPUBLISHED
August 27, 2002
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 236445
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000318-NA
v
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER, a/k/a DENA
RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of D.R.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236446
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000319-NA
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER, a/k/a DENA
RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
-1-
Respondent.
In the Matter of D.M.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236447
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000320-NA
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER, a/k/a DENA
RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of N.E.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236613
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000318-NA
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER,
RANSBERGER,
a/k/a
DENA
Respondent.
-2-
In the Matter of D.R.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236614
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000319-NA
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER,
RANSBERGER,
a/k/a
DENA
Respondent.
In the Matter of D.M.R., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236615
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000320-NA
DAVID P. RANSBERGER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MEDENE L. RANSBERGER,
RANSBERGER,
a/k/a
DENA
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Smolenski and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
-3-
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right the trial court's order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children. The court terminated respondent Medene
Ransberger’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g), and terminated
respondent David Ransberger’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) only. We affirm in
all cases.
I. Facts and Proceedings
Petitioner Family Independence Agency (FIA) first became aware of this case after the
Cass County Sheriff’s Department responded to a domestic violence complaint at respondents’
home in July 1999. Petitioner alleged that respondents had been involved in past incidents of
domestic violence, that the children were being neglected by respondents, and that both
respondents had substance abuse problems. A subsequent parent-agency plan required
respondents to undergo psychological examination, substance abuse evaluations, and counseling.
The children were placed in foster care, and respondents were permitted to have supervised visits
with them.
In November 2000, after numerous services had been offered to respondents, petitioner
filed a petition to terminate both respondents’ parental rights. The termination hearing was
scheduled for January 2001, but at the eleventh hour, the parties entered into a consent order
giving respondents an additional ninety days to meet certain requirements such as maintaining
sobriety and providing proof of employment, utility bill payment, and independent housing.
Ultimately, the matter was tried, beginning in May 2001. After hearing four days of testimony,
the court rendered its oral opinion and terminated both respondents’ parental rights. Both now
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish grounds for termination. Respondent David
Ransberger also challenges the court’s finding that clear evidence did not show that termination
was not in the children’s best interests.
II. Standard of Review
In termination of parental rights cases, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that one of the statutory grounds for termination exists. MCL 712A.19b(3); In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If at least one ground for termination is
proven, the family court must terminate the respondent’s parental rights unless it finds on the
whole record that clear evidence exists that termination is not in the child’s best interests. Id. at
354. We review the court’s termination of parental rights for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
III. Analysis
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established statutory grounds
for termination by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, supra at 356-357. With regard to respondent Medene Ransberger,
the evidence supported the trial court’s finding under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). Testimony
showed that she failed to make progress in counseling, continued to engage in an abusive
relationship with her boyfriend, and incurred an additional drunk driving conviction after
receiving substance abuse counseling. Moreover, she failed to properly interact with the children
during supervised visits on repeated occasions.
-4-
Likewise, the record supports the court’s termination of respondent Medene Ransberger’s
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). Respondent had not secured independent housing, failed to
maintain and properly verify her employment, and violated the court’s order prohibiting contact
with the respondents’ oldest child. Testimony also showed that she was not consistently sober
and that she failed to accept responsibility for her children’s circumstances.
The record also supports the court’s termination of respondent David Ransberger’s
parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). The evidence showed that he minimized the past
sexual abuse experienced by his children and, even after parenting classes, would not be able to
effectively address each child’s special medical, educational, and behavioral needs. Furthermore,
testimony showed that respondent repeatedly focused on his needs rather than those of his
children. For example, when respondent engaged in prohibited contact with the oldest daughter,
he chose not to report her indication that she might commit suicide because he did not want to
get into trouble for violating the court’s no-contact order.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Even though each of the three children had special needs and would be difficult to parent, the
evidence showed that they could be adopted. Additionally, the testimony showed that respondent
David Ransberger was highly likely to fail again at effective parenting, causing the children
further instability. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-5-
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.
