IN RE RUIZ-ZEDEJAS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARIA CHRISTINA RUIZZENDEJAS, MARIA GUADALUPE RUIZZENDEJAS, JOHN CARLOS RUIZ-ZENDEJAS,
and MILDRED SARAHY RUIZ-ZENDEJAS,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289571
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-691925-NA
JUAN RUIZ-FLORES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JULIA ZENDEJAS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of MARIA CHRISTINA RUIZZENDEJAS, MARIA GUADALUPE RUIZZENDEJAS, JOHN CARLOS RUIZ-ZENDEJAS,
and MILDRED SARAHY RUIZ-ZENDEJAS,
Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289572
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-691925-NA
JUAN RUIZ-FLORES,
Respondent,
-1-
and
JULIA ZENDEJAS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Servitto and Gleicher, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and
(ii), and (j). We affirm. These appeals have been decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR
3.977(E); In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 16-17; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). The three older children
became temporary court wards due to suspected child abuse. Maria Guadalupe was treated for
various injuries that were inconsistent with respondent Zendejas’s explanations. She was
discovered to have multiple broken bones in various stages of healing that had apparently gone
untreated. After participating in services, respondents were deemed rehabilitated and the
children were returned to their care. The following year, John was treated for a segmental
fracture of the femur, and Zendejas’s explanation for the injury, although possible, was not
likely. Additional investigation revealed that the child had sustained a broken clavicle four to six
months earlier, which went untreated despite evidence that the child would have been in severe
pain.
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the children’s best interests. 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
respondents’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
