Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 90: Loss of longtime pediatrician was sufficient to justify addressing legal custody.

In this case, the parties were awarded joint legal custody of WPS, with plaintiff awarded physical custody of WPS. The parties had ongoing disputes regarding medication, scheduling medical appointments, virtual schooling, and extracurricular activities for WPS.

Parenting Disputes

Specifically, the parties disagreed (1) whether one of WPS’s medications was prescribed for every day, or only recommended on an as-needed basis; (2) whether plaintiff was permitted to schedule medical appointments for WPS without defendant’s approval, because defendant wanted to go to the appointments, but would not give plaintiff his work schedule; (3) the extent to which defendant worked with WPS on his schoolwork, and whether defendant should obtain the relevant passwords to log WPS into his schooling from defendant’s computer instead of relying on the laptop sent by plaintiff; and (4) whether plaintiff was permitted to enroll WPS in horseback riding lessons, without financial assistance from defendant, regardless of whether defendant consented to the activity.

Of specific importance, plaintiff scheduled a well check-up with WPS’s pediatrician for WPS but defendant asserted she had to change the date because he could not attend. Plaintiff refused, and defendant called the pediatrician after the appointment telling them he was going to sue them. Defendant’s actions resulted in the pediatrician’s office terminating its relationship with WPS.

Modify Custody and Parenting Time

These disagreements culminated in plaintiff’s motion to modify custody and parenting time, seeking an award of sole legal custody and to change defendant’s parenting time to the same number of days, but different days of the week, to correlate with defendant’s days off work because defendant was not spending all his parenting time with WPS.

Change in Circumstance

The trial court determined the change in circumstances involving WPS’s loss of his longtime pediatrician was sufficient to justify addressing legal custody. However, the trial court determined there were no changed circumstances warranting a review of parenting time because the only evidence provided was plaintiff’s allegation defendant was not home during his parenting time, which was not established by any persuasive evidence.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court addressed the best interest factors, under MCL 722.23, and found most to be neutral, but some to weigh in plaintiff’s favor. Specifically, the trial court noted defendant’s participation in WPS’s education was less than plaintiff’s and although both parents were able to provide for WPS’s material needs, plaintiff was more capable of providing medical care; thus, this factor weighed in favor plaintiff.

The trial court discussed the difference between the parties’ care for WPS’s medical needs, noting plaintiff was much more involved and defendant’s refusal to provide his schedule contributed to his own frustrations regarding his lack of involvement. The trial court was also concerned with defendant’s video recording of WPS’s medical appointments without the providers’ consent and defendant’s improper behavior with WPS’s medical providers.

Considering these facts, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence demonstrated the parties should retain joint legal custody, and parenting time should remain the same. However, the trial court gave plaintiff the exclusive right to make medical appointments and medical decisions for WPS and required defendant to administer WPS’s medication as prescribed or directed by WPS’s doctor.

The trial court ordered that the parties could enroll WPS in extracurricular activities during their own parenting time, and at their own expense.

Help with Child Custody & Parenting Time

Aldrich Legal Services assist parents with all types of child custody and parenting time matters, including, relocation, petitioning for or contesting modifications, enforcing child support orders, and negotiating child support agreements. Our firm is committed to helping you find resolutions to all your family law needs, allowing you to move on with your life in a positive 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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000