Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 51: Defendant-father’s motion for a change of custody and parenting time was not granted in error because all of the trial court’s findings of fact were not against the great weight of the evidence.


Plaintiff and defendant have three children together—ET, KT, and CT.  Plaintiff and defendant’s relationship ended in 2013.  Following the end of their relationship, the trial court entered a consent order for custody granting plaintiff and defendant joint legal custody of the three children and defendant parenting time three weekends a month and every Wednesday night.

In 2018, defendant filed an emergency motion for change of custody and modification of parenting time due to ET feeling suicidal after being sexually assaulted,  due to Plaintiff and the three minor children having been removed from their home, and due to concerns over Plaintiff’s mental health.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion, ordering that defendant have primary physical custody of KT and CT, ET live with Plaintiff’s mother, and plaintiff and defendant continue to share legal custody.  This appeal follows.


Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant primary custody of KT and CT.  We disagree.

All custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the circuit court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the circuit court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the circuit court made a clear legal error on a major issue.

Furthermore, a court may not modify or amend a previous judgment or issue a new custody order that changes a child’s established custodial environment unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.   An established custodial environment exists if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.  In the trial court, defendant conceded that the children had an established custodial environment with plaintiff, and that concession is not challenged on appeal.  Thus, the only issue before this Court is whether the trial court properly found, by clear and convincing evidence, that it was in the best interests of KT and CT to change custody.   In making a custody determination, a trial court is required to evaluate the best interests of the children under the 12 statutorily enumerated factors. This Court “defer[s] to the trial court’s credibility determinations, and the trial court has discretion to accord differing weight to the best-interest factors.

The appellate court reviewed the lower court’s findings on all the best interest factors and determined that none of them were against the great weight of the evidence.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have child custody issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000


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...

REAL ESTATE 59: Concluding that the one-year period contained in the parties’ home purchase agreement was not a statute of limitations, but rather akin to a statute of repose, and that it was plain and unambiguous, the court held that it barred plai

BACKGROUND On March 12, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of defendants’ home. The purchase agreement contained the following clause: TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION: Buyer and Seller agree that any legal action against...

CRIMINAL LAW 16: The trial court did not err in refusing to order a Daubert hearing as to the reliability of the DataMaster breathalyzer device as MCL 257.625a(6)(a) shows the Legislature has determined that the device’s results are valid and reliabl

UNDERLYING FACTS In the early afternoon of November 4, 2016, defendant was pulled over after an officer was dispatched for a possible drunk driver. The officer had defendant exit his vehicle and perform several field sobriety tests. Those tests...

FAMILY LAW 52: Defendant-mother was not entitled to relief on her claim the trial court did not comply with the requirements for a de novo hear, the trial court did not err in using the preponderance of the evidence standard, and its best interest f

PERTINENT FACTS In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...

Are you required to provide ID as a passenger?

Original Post: 05/14/2017 The preceding is for informational purposes only. Being stopped by the police is not usually a pleasant experience. Even with the most benign of infractions, the encounter can be adversarial. The idea 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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000