Now Accepting New Clients!

In a custody arrangement, one parent moving 48 miles from the other parent does not constitute a change in the children's established custodial environment sufficient to warrant preventing the move

Holding that it did not promote the children's best interests to continue their education in a school 14 miles from the home of defendant-Garrison (the father) and 28 miles from the home of plaintiff-Zalewski (the mother), the court reversed the trial court's order preventing Zalewski from enrolling the children in Allen Park public schools. Several years after the parties divorced, Zalewski obtained new employment in Dearborn, approximately an hour's drive from her then-home in Monroe. She purchased a home in Allen Park, moved with the couple's two daughters, and planned to enroll them in an Allen Park public school. Garrison lives in Monroe County. He filed a motion to block Zalewski from changing the children's school. Just as in Pierron, Zalewski's decision to move approximately 45 miles from Garrison's home did not alter the children's ECE with both parents. The distance between the "homes and between Garrison's home and the Allen Park school 'would only require relatively minor adjustments' in the parenting time schedule." Garrison begins work in Dearborn, very near Zalewski's home, at 5:20 PM four days a week. The timing and location of his work would make it convenient for him "to attend after school activities or take his daughters to dinner before his shift began," should they attend school in Allen Park. His "weekend parenting time schedule could remain largely intact, complimenting Zalewski's schedule which requires her to work two weekends out of three." Also as inPierron, the mother's home was "considered the primary residence for purposes of school enrollment." As the change in schools would not alter the children's ECE, the trial court correctly employed the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. The question of who bore that burden was "not straightforward." Although Zalewski was within her rights to move to Allen Park, and Garrison moved to block the change in school enrollment, she bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the change would be in the children's best interests. Once the trial court determined that the proposed change in schools would not alter their ECE and declared that Zalewski had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the change was in the children's best interests, the trial court determined which best-interest factors under MCL 722.23 were relevant to the dispute. The court did not agree that every factor cited by the trial court was relevant to the resolution of this issue, or that the evidence preponderated in favor of maintaining enrollment at the school in Monroe. 

Although it is "correct that fraud requires a plaintiff to show that a party 'reasonably' relied on a supposed misrepresentation," it is "wrong that such reasonable reliance imposes a duty on a plaintiff to perform 'an investigation of all assertions

The trial court acted correctly when it prevented defendant-White from suggesting to the jury that plaintiff-Associated Construction was obligated to investigate his assertions that he could pay for the renovation project. Thus, the court affirmed...

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