Now Accepting New Clients!

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 scheduled for adjudication, plaintiff filed this case seeking legal and physical custody of RM and parenting time.  Plaintiff testified that he was now willing and able to visit and financially support RM, and that he wholly agreed with a supervised parenting-time schedule to prevent his reintroduction from being “a shock” to RM. The referee expressed concern about plaintiff’s extended absence from RM’s life but found that defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that parenting time would harm RM. The referee opined that defendant’s argument regarding MCL 712A.19b(3) (termination of parental rights) was inapposite because the petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights was not before the court in this case. Defendant filed an objection to the referee’s recommendations, and the trial court held a de novo hearing. The trial court determined that the fact that MCL 712A.19b(3) might be satisfied was irrelevant to the parenting-time issue before it because the court in the termination case had specifically declined to make any findings before this case was resolved. The trial court noted that under MCL 722.27a(3), RM had a right to parenting time with plaintiff unless clear and convincing evidence established that it would endanger her physical, mental, or emotional health. The trial court found that defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff presented a risk of harm to RM. Defendant now appeals.


Orders concerning parenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court’s findings were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.   


Defendant argues that the trial court made findings against the great weight of the evidence and palpably abused its discretion in granting plaintiff parenting time because 1) the Legislature has specified in MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) that a parent’s desertion of a child for just 91 days causes harm sufficient to justify terminating the parent’s parental rights, and plaintiff deserted RM for more than four years, and 2) the trial court should have relied on the opinions of defendant and her parents that being reintroduced to plaintiff would mentally and emotionally harm RM. We disagree. Defendant has not provided to either the trial court or this Court any authority that satisfaction of MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) related to the termination of parental rights necessarily provides clear and convincing evidence in a parenting-time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to the parent. Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) has no bearing on this custody and parenting-time case, which is governed by the Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 et seq. The trial court did not make findings against the great weight of the evidence or palpably abuse its discretion when it determined that neither plaintiff’s abandonment of RM, in itself, nor defendant’s and her parents’ unsupported opinions sufficed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that RM having parenting time with plaintiff as required under MCL 722.27a(3), would endanger RM’s physical, mental, or emotional health. The child’s best interests govern a court’s decision regarding parenting time.  It is presumed to be in the best interests of a child for the child to have a strong relationship with both of his or her parents. Therefore, parenting time shall be granted to a parent in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong relationship . . . .  MCL 722.27a(3) provides that “A child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health.” The referee, in making her recommendations, and the trial court, in adopting them after de novo review, acknowledged that plaintiff had been an absentee parent and that, even if he was not legally required to do so, he should have contacted defendant’s parents to arrange parenting time with RM. However, the referee and the trial court rejected defendant’s argument regarding the impact of plaintiff’s abandonment of RM because, under MCL 722.27a(3), plaintiff’s absence from RM’s life for years did not, in itself, establish by clear and convincing evidence that RM would be harmed by reintroduction to plaintiff. The trial court correctly concluded that the potential that plaintiff would abandon RM again did not constitute clear and convincing evidence currently in existence, such that the trial court could conclude that RM will be harmed by parenting time with plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court’s findings were not against the great weight of the evidence, and it did not palpably abuse its discretion by granting parenting time to plaintiff.


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