IN RE ZINDOVIC MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DAVID JOVAN ZINDOVIC,
KRISTINA ZINDOVIC, ALEKSANDAR JOVAN
ZINDOVIC, and MARKO JOVAN ZINDOVIC,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 252639
St. Joseph Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000949-NA
VESNA ZINDOVIC,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOVAN ZINDOVIC,
Respondent.
Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Donofrio and Borrello, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The conditions that led to adjudication involved long-term and extremely serious
domestic violence by Jovan Zindovic against respondent-appellant. Respondent-appellant
generally made good progress with her treatment plan. The domestic violence over the years,
however, had harmed the children greatly, and it was important that the children not be exposed
again to Zindovic’s violence. Respondent-appellant was well aware of how important this was.
Nonetheless, she had contact with him on more than one occasion during the case, with ensuing
violence, and lied to conceal the contacts. There was evidence that respondent-appellant would
not be able to keep from going back to Zindovic, at least not without considerable additional
therapy. The trial court concluded that the conditions of domestic violence leading to
adjudication had not changed, that respondent-appellant could not provide proper care and
custody for the children if she continued this relationship, and that the children were at risk of
harm from future exposure to domestic violence if returned to their mother.
-1-
Given the evidence, we cannot conclude the trial court clearly erred in finding that these
statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not
show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s
best interests given a finding that she would continue to have contact with Zindovic in the future.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial
court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-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.
