Now Accepting New Clients!

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: DHHS filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over the child.

In 2018, H filed a domestic-relations complaint against M.  The trial court entered a judgment of custody providing that the parties shall have joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties’ minor child, CKM, and that the parties shall share parenting time equally. These proceedings occurred in the domestic relations section of the family division of Wayne Circuit Court.

Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)

in September 2020, the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CKM. The child-protective matter was referred to the juvenile section of the family division. The petition alleged that H inhales (huffs) household spray chemicals whose volatile vapors are breathed in and then she passes out or becomes incoherent with the children present. Her substance abuse affects her ability to parent.

At the jurisdictional trial, H admitted that she had a substance abuse addiction that somewhat affected her ability to parent her children. The trial court ordered that CKM would remain with M until the custody hearing in a few months.

Review Hearings

The trial court held several dispositional review hearings. As of May 5, 2021, CKM was living with M but had supervised visitations with H, and H was seeking employment. The goal continued to be reunification. However, DHHS requested that M seek and obtain a custody order for CKM. Accordingly, M filed a motion for sole physical and legal custody of CKM.

The trial court was informed that CKM had been living with M since early 2020. The trial court thus found sufficient change in circumstances for the Court to address the issue of custody. The trial court next briefly heard testimony from M and H about the best-interests factors under MCL 722.23. Before issuing its custody ruling, the trial court asked the DHHS caseworker for her position, and the caseworker recommended that H have supervised parenting time until we get some more drug screens in.

With these findings in mind, the trial court ruled that M and H would share joint legal custody because they seem to be able to work quite well together. However, the trial court ruled that M would have sole physical custody, particularly because DHHS currently recommended that H only have supervised parenting time.

Legal Assistance with Custody Issues in Michigan

If you are separating from the mother or father of your children, it is important to protect your custodial rights. If the 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 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
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000