Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 57: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-mother’s motion to change custody and modify her parenting time of the parties’ child.


MC was born in the summer of 2014 at which time the parties resided together. In November 2014, plaintiff-father filed a complaint for sole physical and joint legal custody of MC. The complaint and subsequent motions presented highly concerning allegations regarding defendant’s substance abuse issues. After an emergency motion in October 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff temporary sole physical custody and ordered that he be responsible for MC’s medical care. In February 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff sole legal and physical custody, and defendant received supervised parenting time. On April 19, 2019, the trial court entered a consent order dismissing defendant’s motion to change physical custody and held the issue of legal custody in abeyance. MC’s surgery was completed in May 2019 as scheduled. On September 11, 2019, defendant filed her second motion to change custody and also sought increased parenting time. On September 25, 2019, the trial court entered a consent order granting defendant joint legal custody and increasing her unsupervised parenting time to every other weekend as well as two weeks in the summer. Seven weeks later, on November 13, 2019, defendant filed her third motion to change custody, this time an emergency motion requesting that the court enforce the joint-custody order and grant her temporary legal and physical custody pending an evidentiary hearing. On November 13, 2019, the trial court entered an order denying ex parte relief and ordered that MC was to remain in school, and on November 20, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s motion. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel objected to the Friend of Court recommendation that her motion be denied and reiterated the allegations made in her motion. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and informed the parties that they needed to start working together and set aside their disdain for one another to make decisions in the best interests of MC.


This Court reviews a trial court’s determination regarding whether a party has demonstrated proper cause or a change of circumstances under the great weight of the evidence standard. A trial court’s factual findings are against the great weight of the evidence when the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.


Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion without addressing whether there was a proper cause or change of circumstances to modify its prior order. While the better course would be for the trial court to expressly address the threshold question, it is clear from the record that the court concluded that there were no grounds to revisit the issues of custody or parenting time. We see no error in this determination because the allegations supporting defendant’s motion did not establish proper cause or a sufficient change of circumstances. Not abiding by a joint-custody order certainly could be a sufficient reason to revisit a prior order. However, considering that defendant’s motion was brought only seven weeks after joint legal custody had been granted, it was reasonable for the trial court to instead direct the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on the medical and educational issues.  Overall, these assertions, brought less than two months after the last order, were not of such a magnitude that we can say that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion. We also note that it took years for defendant to reobtain joint legal custody of MC and the substantial unsupervised parenting time granted by the September 2019 consent order. Absent compelling circumstances, it was not reversible error for the trial court to deny further modification on the basis of a motion brought seven weeks later.


In sum, defendant’s motion to change custody and parenting time reiterated the parties ongoing dispute regarding MC’s medical conditions and presented related questions relating to MC’s education. These are plainly important decisions regarding the child that the parties must attempt to agree on before seeking court involvement. Because the court had only recently granted joint legal custody, it did not err by denying defendant’s motion and entering an order clarifying the parties’ responsibility to co-parent.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have 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


PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

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 law 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...

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