Now Accepting New Clients!

DIVORCE 62: Changing schools can disrupt the custodial environment.

The parties were married for five and a half years with only one child, divorcing in December 2018. Plaintiff continued to live in the marital home in Washtenaw County after defendant moved out. Following the divorce, defendant moved to Fowlerville. Initially, the parties were awarded joint custody and divided parenting time equally.

In October 2019, plaintiff was evicted from the marital home and moved in with her boyfriend and his mother in Sterling Heights. The minor, who was in the first grade, continued to attend school in Washtenaw County. Plaintiff’s new home was approximately 60 miles away. As a result, when the minor was with plaintiff the pair would need to leave home at 5:30 a.m. and would not return home until 7:30 p.m. Meanwhile, plaintiff’s home in Sterling Heights was only a five-minute commute to the local elementary school.

Change in Custody and Child’s School

Plaintiff filed a motion in the circuit court, requesting an order transferring the minor to the Utica school district and awarding her primary physical custody.

Following a six-day evidentiary hearing spread over several months, the trial court instead ordered that the minor transfer to the Fowlerville school district and reside primarily with defendant.

Best Interests of the Child

In this case, it is undisputed that the minor had an established custodial environment with both parents and that changing schools would disrupt the custodial environment. If the proposed change alters the established custodial environment, the party seeking the change must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the child’s best interests.

Plaintiff argues that factor (c), the capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs, should have favored her rather than defendant. Plaintiff takes issue with the trial court’s finding that plaintiff had struggled financially since the divorce, seemingly unable to independently provide for herself and the minor.

Plaintiff testified that she could not obtain housing independent of her boyfriend. This factor is not determined solely by who makes more money as long as each party has enough money to meet the child’s needs. However, defendant not only earned more money than plaintiff, but plaintiff, despite being financially unstable, left a high paying job so that she could live with her boyfriend.

Moreover, the trial court was concerned that plaintiff made a habit of leaving the minor with third parties overnight during her parenting time. Plaintiff testified that she often left the minor overnight with her best friend or her 19-year-old daughter. The trial court was concerned that plaintiff’s conduct was indicative of someone who put their interests ahead of their child’s. Furthermore, the trial court was concerned that the mother was ceding many of her parental responsibilities to her nineteen-year-old daughter.

Skilled Assistance with Custody

If you are going through a divorce or are separating, it is important to protect your custodial rights. If the process does not turn out like you thought it would, you may not have the custody, visitation or child support you deserve. Seek the advice and guidance of an experienced family law and divorce attorney who will be by your side every step of the way.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000