Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 37: Referee recommended against changing legal custody or parenting time.

In this case, Plaintiff moved to modify joint legal custody or parenting time. Plaintiff and defendant had joint legal custody and a parenting-time schedule with the child, primarily living with plaintiff during the school year and with defendant during the summer. Plaintiff asked for sole legal custody and additional parenting time during the summer.

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

At the referee hearing, plaintiff testified about defendant’s nonparticipation in the diagnosis and treatment ADHD. At one point, defendant took the child off his stimulant medication, which required plaintiff to seek additional treatment to identify a more suitable medication. With the aid of a pediatric psychiatrist, whom defendant refused to see or take the child to, the child went on a suitable nonstimulant medication.

On the issue of parenting time, plaintiff opposed increasing defendant’s overnights during the school year to balance out her proposed expanded parenting time during the summer. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s request for expanded summer parenting time without a comparable decrease in her parenting time during the school year.

After the hearing, the referee found that the parties agreed that changed circumstances warranted revisiting custody and parenting time and that an established custodial environment existed with both parents.

The referee evaluated the best-interest factors under MCL 722.23, and determined that factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (k) weighed equally or neutrally. The referee found that factor (c)—the capacity and disposition to provide the child with food, clothing, and medical treatment—favored plaintiff because she was better able to get medical treatment, while defendant delayed or made it inconvenient for plaintiff to get treatment. The referee found that factor (j) weighed against both parties because they had difficulty keeping their personal conflict separate from their co-parenting. The referee weighed factor (l) in favor of joint legal custody and directed the parties to work harder to be proper joint legal custodians.

The referee noted that defendant had become more engaged in medical treatment. The referee instructed the parties to seek judicial intervention to resolve disputes rather than resorting to unilateral action.

The referee ultimately concluded that plaintiff had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that granting her sole legal custody would be in child’s best interests. The trial court subsequently signed an order affirming the referee’s recommendations against changing legal custody or parenting time.

To modify a custody decision, the moving party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that proper cause or changed circumstances warrant a modification of custody.

The trial court in this case found that although the parties were unable to make decisions together about the child’s medical treatment, the defendant-father demonstrated his willingness to acquiesce to the plaintiff-mother’s demands and remain open to the plaintiff’s opinions, while the plaintiff did not reciprocate. Plaintiff admitted that she resorted to unilateral decision-making because, according to plaintiff, defendant refused to participate.

The referee found that both parents exercised parenting time regularly and generally in accordance with court orders, except when the child’s interests required a deviation from the schedule. Testimony on the parenting-time schedule, the referee correctly found that plaintiff overstated the amount of time she went without seeing the child in the summer. The referee further noted that plaintiff’s proposal would significantly reduce the number of defendant’s overnights per year, which was consistent with plaintiff’s testimony that she did not agree that defendant should have additional overnights during the school year.

At the Plymouth and Ann Arbor law firm of Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of custody-related matters.

If the divorce or separation process does not turn out like you thought it would, you may not have the custody or parenting time 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

FAMILY LAW 41: To minimize disruptive changes in children’s custody, moving party must establish cause or a change of circumstance.

To minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes in children’s custody, a trial court may only modify children’s custody if the moving party first establishes a proper cause or a change of circumstances. The purpose of this framework is to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

DIVORCE 35: Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit are generally considered separate property.

Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit meant to compensate for pain and suffering, as opposed to lost wages, are generally considered separate property. Moreover, separate assets may lose their character as separate property and transform into marital property if they are commingled with marital assets and treated by the parties as marital property.

4 Common Real Estate Disputes to Watch Out For

Creating a mutually beneficial real estate deal usually goes through smoothly with both sides presenting their interests then negotiating toward a middle ground they can both agree to uphold. Unfortunately, not all deals go through without an issue....

REAL ESTATE 44: Rule of acquiescence in boundary disputes.

The doctrine of acquiescence provides that, where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for a period of at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line. The underlying reason for the rule of acquiescence is the promotion of peaceful resolution of boundary disputes.

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

The Steps of Construction Litigation

Most contracting agreements move forward without any problems, but when disputes between contracting parties come up, it can be confusing to understand the legal process to take. The legal experts at Aldrich Legal Services want to make the...

REAL ESTATE 38: Plaintiff fails to make land contract payments.

The land contract stated that T Company sold real property to plaintiff. The land contract further stated that if plaintiff failed to make a monthly payment, T Company could execute the quitclaim deed, thereby terminating plaintiff’s rights to the real property under the land contract.

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