Now Accepting New Clients!

PROBATE 33: Petitioners filed for co-guardianship of each grandchild.

This case arises out of petitioners’ long-term housing and care for three minor children of their son, the respondent in this matter. The parties agree that in 2007, respondent telephoned petitioner-grandmother from California and asked her to come to California to pick up the children and take them with her back to Michigan so that he and his wife, the children’s mother, who had been hospitalized for suicidal thoughts, could address marital and mental health issues. Petitioner-grandmother complied.

The children lived with petitioners for the next eleven years, from 2007 until respondent moved them out on July 27, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. The parties also agree that respondent never provided petitioners with a power of attorney or other legal document granting petitioners the legal authority to make decisions about the children’s care and maintenance.

Respondent lived with petitioners from June 2007 until February 2012, and again from late November 2017 until June 2018. In May 2018, respondent began to search for a house to buy and move into with his fiancé. He purchased a house on June 29, 2018 and moved in the next day. Respondent allowed the children to continue to live with petitioners while he settled into the new home, bought furniture, and prepared for the children to live with him. His planned move-in date for the children was August 1, 2018. In the weeks preceding the planned move-in date, respondent, sometimes aided by petitioner-grandmother, moved some of the children’s belongings into the new house, and they spent several overnights with him.

On July 27, 2018, petitioners filed petitions for appointment of a guardian for each of the children, requesting that petitioners be appointed as co-guardians. Respondent took the children hours later and they have lived with him since that date.

Respondent objected to the petitions.

Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.

The record evidence indicates that they were not yet residing with respondent. Instead, the record shows that the children resided continuously with petitioners from January 2007 until July 27, 2018, hours after petitioners had filed their petition for guardianship. During this period, petitioners housed the children, cared for them, and made all the child rearing decisions, even after respondent began to exercise some overnight visits at his place starting in May 2018. Regardless of respondent’s intention to have the children reside with him in the future, or his characterization of the months after May 9, 2018 as a “transitional period,” when the petitions were filed, the children were still residing with, and in the care of, petitioners.

In this case, all parties agree that the children had moved into petitioners’ home as of 2007 and were continuing to live there, as allowed by respondent, for over 11 years as of the filing of the petitions.

The trial court can now gauge the children’s best interests and make the discretionary decision as to whether a guardianship appointment for any of the children is appropriate.

To schedule a consultation with an experienced probate lawyer at our firm, contact our law office in Plymouth, Michigan. Probate litigation is complex and requires the attention of experienced and knowledgeable counsel.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

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