734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

A trial court did not err by terminating a father's parental rights where he fought with the mother in front of the children and left the children for long periods of time with the mother, who had a serious drug problem

The court held that the trial court did not clearly err when it found that the DHHS established grounds for terminating the respondent-father's parental rights by clear and convincing evidence or when it found that termination of both respondents-parents' parental rights was in the four children's best interests. The father fought with the respondent-mother in front of the children and police became involved on at least two occasions. Also, there was evidence that he would travel as part of his work and leave the children in the mother's "care with full knowledge that she had a serious drug problem that prevented her from safely caring for the children." He "understood that he needed to separate himself from his wife while she remained addicted to drugs, but was unable or unwilling to do so." He repeatedly represented to the DHHS that he was "planning for the children's care on his own, but-despite his representations-continued to have contact with his wife; in fact, he impregnated his wife and, by the time of the dispositional hearing, was living in a hotel with her." The father also "apparently provided her with the car involved in her arrest for driving on a suspended license and possession of heroin." The caseworker testified at the dispositional hearing that the father "was obsessed with his wife-and the evidence amply demonstrated that he continued to be obsessed with her. His codependency led to his problems with anger and domestic violence, and also contributed to his inability to provide proper care and custody." Based on the evidence, the trial court could find that, as a result of his dysfunctional relationship with his wife, the father was "unable to provide proper care and custody to his children and would continue to be unable to provide proper care and custody to them for the foreseeable future. The totality of this evidence, especially when considered along with the evidence that the father had been unable to secure proper housing in over a year, sufficiently supported the trial court's finding" that the DHHS had established grounds for terminating his parental rights under § (g) by clear and convincing evidence. Affirmed.


5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405