734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

FAMILY LAW 87: The court concluded that plaintiff’s request for 50-50 custody was more about plaintiff’s needs and wants than the children’s best interests.

The parties were married for 11 years. During their marriage, they had two children who were age seven and five respectively. While the parties were married, the parties agreed that plaintiff would work outside the home and defendant would stay at home with the children and homeschool the children.

Interim Custody Order

Plaintiff filed for divorce in August 2020, and the parties met with the Friend of the Court to determine an interim custody and parenting time arrangement. In October 2020, the Friend of the Court recommended that plaintiff would have parenting time every other weekend from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday morning, as well as every Tuesday and Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Plaintiff objected to this recommendation, but the parties adhered to this parenting schedule during the pendency of this case.

Objection to Interim Custody Order

Four hearings were held before a referee regarding plaintiff’s objection to the interim custody and parenting time order. Plaintiff sought a 50-50 parenting time schedule and said that he would be willing to homeschool the children during his parenting time. Defendant asserted that the children struggled with homeschool on Mondays after returning from a weekend at plaintiff’s home. The referee determined that each parent had an established custodial environment (ECE) with the children. The referee analyzed each of the best-interest factors and recommended that the parties share joint physical custody of the two children on a week-on, week-off schedule. The referee implied that each parent would be responsible for homeschooling the children during their parenting time.

Objection to Referee’s Recommendation

Defendant objected to the referee’s recommendation. Defendant argued that it was not in the children’s best interests for the parties to alternate week-on, week-off parenting time because the children had stronger emotional bonds with defendant and because defendant was better able to manage the children’s significant medical issues and the children’s education. Defendant sought a parenting schedule in which she continued to homeschool the children full-time. Plaintiff responded to defendant’s objections and argued that joint physical custody was in the best interests of the children and requested that the trial court enter an order adopting the referee’s recommended custody and parenting time arrangement.

Trial Court Review Hearing

The trial court held a de novo review hearing. The court concluded that plaintiff’s request for 50-50 custody and request to homeschool the children was more about plaintiff’s needs and wants than the children’s best interests. The trial court ordered that defendant would continue to homeschool the children full-time and that plaintiff would have parenting time every Wednesday from noon until 8:00 p.m., as well as on weekends.

By the time of the trial court’s order, custody and parenting time of the children had been governed by the interim order for nearly a year. The trial court was appropriately mindful that from the children’s perspective, any change to their established custodial environment should be minimal.

Assistance With Custody

If you are going through a divorce or are separating from the mother or father of your children, it is important to protect your custodial rights. If the divorce or separation process does not turn out like you thought it would, you may not have the custody you deserve. Seek the advice and guidance of an experienced family law and divorce attorney.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

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...

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