734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

FAMILY LAW 79: Plaintiff did not achieve the status of natural parent.

Plaintiff and defendant were not married to each other. During the relationship, defendant underwent in-vitro fertilization and gave birth to a child. The parties agree that plaintiff has no biological relationship to the child, and that after the child was born plaintiff did not adopt the child.

Joint Custody

In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that after the child was born both parties parented the child, even after the parties’ relationship ended.  According to plaintiff, in 2017 defendant demanded that plaintiff have no further contact with the child. In 2020, plaintiff filed action for joint legal and physical custody of the child and argued that the child’s best interests were supported by the parties sharing custody.

Plaintiff argues that she has standing to seek custody under the CCA because the parties were equitably married at the time the child was conceived and born, and she therefore is the child’s natural father.

Child Custody Act of 1970

In Michigan, the Child Custody Act of 1970 (CCA) governs custody, parenting time, and child support issues for minor children; it is the exclusive means by which to pursue child custody rights.

In her answer to the complaint, defendant asserted that plaintiff lacked standing to seek custody of the child under the CCA because she had neither a biological nor adoptive relationship with the child. Defendant thereafter moved for summary disposition of plaintiff’s complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(5) and (8), asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to seek custody of the child and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Natural Parent

The CCA defines parent as the natural or adoptive parent of a child. The Court has defined natural parent as meaning that the person is a parent related to the child by blood rather than by adoption. In addition, a person may also be deemed a natural parent under the equitable-parent doctrine. However, the court specifically declined to extend the equitable-parent doctrine outside the context of marriage.

The CCA defines a third person as an individual other than a parent. Under the CCA, a third person does not have standing by virtue of the fact that he or she resides with the child and has a ‘personal stake’ in the outcome of the litigation. Further, a third person may not create a custody dispute by simply filing a complaint in circuit court alleging that giving legal custody to the third party is in the child’s best interests.

The court determined that plaintiff in this case is not a parent of the child. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

Child Custody & Support

Aldrich Legal Services assists parents with all types of child support and custody matters, including, relocation, petitioning for or contesting modifications, enforcing child support orders and negotiating child support agreements.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

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