734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

FAMILY LAW 89: Motion to change the domicile of the children.

The parties were married in 2011. In 2016, a consent judgment of divorce was entered. The parties were granted joint legal and physical custody of the children. The parties were afforded equal parenting time.

In 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to change the domicile of the children from Clarkston to Traverse City. She was engaged to a man who lived and worked in Traverse City, and she had a job offer in Traverse City making more money than she was making at her job in Clarkston. Defendant opposed the motion.

Motion for Change of Domicile

A motion for a change of domicile essentially requires a four-step approach.

  1. A trial court must determine whether the moving party has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the factors support a motion for a change of domicile.
  2. If the factors support a change in domicile, then the trial court must then determine whether an established custodial environment exists.
  3. If an established custodial environment exists, the trial court must then determine whether the change of domicile would modify or alter that established custodial environment.
  4. If the trial court finds that a change of domicile would modify or alter the child’s established custodial environment, the trial court must determine whether the change in domicile would be in the child’s best interests.

Hearing

A three-day evidentiary hearing was held. By the time of the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff was remarried and had purchased a home in Traverse City, although plaintiff was continuing to live in a rented home in Clarkston.

Defendant admitted at the evidentiary hearing that he had discussed the court proceedings and the proposed move with the children. The trial court cautioned the parties not to discuss these matters with the children. The trial court interviewed the children in chambers.

The court found that the children had an established custodial environment with both parties. The trial court found that the change of domicile would alter the established custodial environment, and the court thus evaluated the best-interest factors of MCL 722.23. The court found that the parties were equal on most of the factors. The court found that plaintiff was favored on factor (j) because defendant had inappropriately discussed the proposed move and the court proceedings with the children. The court considered the reasonable preferences of the children under factor (i).

There were facts other than plaintiff’s increased income at the job in Traverse City indicating that the proposed move had the capacity to improve the children’s overall quality of life. Plaintiff’s job in Traverse City would afford her a flexible schedule so that she could care for the children. The children would have a larger home with more space outdoors to engage in sports and activities that they enjoy. The school in Traverse City was rated similar to the school attended in Clarkston, and the children could continue their extracurricular activities in Traverse City.

The court determined that plaintiff had established by clear and convincing evidence that the change of domicile was in the best interests of the children.

Revised Parenting Time

The court granted defendant extensive in-person parenting time, including on weekends, summer breaks, spring breaks, and school holidays. Defendant was to have regular telephonic and electronic contact with the children, including through Skype, Facetime, text messages, and Google Duo.

Assistance With Custody

It is important to remember that decrees regarding 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. If a custody motion does not turn out like you thought it would, you may not have the custody or parenting time you deserve. Seek the advice and guidance of an experienced family law attorney who will be by your side every step of the way.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN WILLS/TRUSTS 33: Trustees required to provide notice informing recipients that they may challenge the validity of a trust and the period allowed for bringing such a challenge.

The notice sent clearly advised her that if she wanted to contest the validity of the Trust in a judicial proceeding, the law required her to do so within six months from the date of the letter. Nothing in the statute requires a trustee to inform the recipients of the specific legal consequences of not acting during the time allowed.

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 97: The court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff.

The trial court found that plaintiff sustained her burden of establishing that a constructive trust was necessary to prevent defendant from being unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the court imposed a constructive trust on defendant’s one-half interest in the property in favor of plaintiff and ordered defendant to convey his interest in the property to plaintiff.

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

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.

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