734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

FAMILY LAW 7: Parents share legal/physical custody but disagree on school.

Plaintiff, had physical custody of the minor child as of August 2011, but shared legal custody with Defendant. In October 2012, the parties filed competing motions for physical custody and parenting time. In 2013, the trial court ordered joint legal and physical custody with alternating weeks of parenting time consistent with the parties’ practice at the time.

In September 2016, when the subject of school placement arose, the trial court continued joint legal and physical custody, ordered enrollment of the child in the Public Schools near Defendant, and gave Defendant parenting time during the week and Plaintiff parenting time on the weekend.

In October 2016, Defendant filed a motion to amend the order, requesting two additional weekends of parenting time per month. Plaintiff countered that the parents could have equal parenting time if the child attended school halfway between the parents’ houses. After holding an evidentiary hearing in February 2017, the trial court maintained the parents’ joint legal and physical custody of the child. The trial court ordered that the child finish kindergarten at the school that he was attending and enroll in the school halfway between for the following school year beginning in the fall of 2017. Beginning in the summer, the trial court ordered, the parents had equal parenting time either as agreed or on an alternating weekly basis.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s order regarding custody, parenting time, and school placement.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by changing custody of the child because it did not find clear and convincing evidence that changing custody was in the child’s best interests. The trial court did not change custody, however. The parents have had joint legal and physical custody since 2013, and the trial court continued this custody arrangement. In addition, the purpose of the trial court’s ruling that the child should change schools was to maintain the established custodial environment with both parents.

Defendant argues that the trial court’s ruling that the child should change schools to have equal time with each parent was not in the child’s best interests. Defendant maintains that he was able to provide a more “stable, satisfactory environment.”

Although Defendant has enjoyed a longer period of stable housing and employment, Plaintiff has also demonstrated stability. She had housing and employment, and she maintained them for longer periods of time just before the hearing. She also planned to stay in the house she was living in. Accordingly, the evidence does not clearly preponderate in Defendant’s favor.

MCL 722.23(h) lists the home, school, and community record of the child as a custody factor. There was no evidence that the child would not do equally well at the new school, in an area where he had relatives. Plaintiff explained her plan of transportation and enrollment, checking with the school about enrollment and finding the school that was roughly equidistant for both parties. Thus, the evidence about the school does not clearly preponderate in Defendant’s favor.

In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for additional parenting time and by changing the child’s school to maintain the established custodial environment with both parents. Further, the trial court did not err by concluding that changing schools to maintain the established custodial environment was in the child’s best interests.  The appeals court affirmed.

It is important to remember that decrees regarding child support, child custody, and parenting time are not always final.  Circumstances change all the time, which is why it is possible to seek a post-decree modification.

Our family law attorneys at Aldrich Legal Services have helped countless family law clients across southeast Michigan, including in Wayne, Washtenaw and Oakland counties, receive modifications that more fairly meet their needs. Contact us at our law firm in Plymouth. We can help you determine your chances of receiving a modification.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

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
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405