When parents are unable to cooperate and make joint decisions, a trial court may be required to grant sole custody to one parent.
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Child Support category:
FAMILY LAW 72: Plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate regarding parenting time results in change of custody.
The record reflects that plaintiff refused to cooperate with defendant regarding defendant’s parenting time until the circuit court intervened to enforce defendant’s rights.
FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th
The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...
FAMILY LAW 62: The court held that the trial court erred by imputing income to Defendant and increasing the amount of child support he pays to Plaintiff.
The parties have two children, and in 2012 an order was entered requiring Defendant to pay $460 in monthly child support to Plaintiff. In 2018 and early 2019, there was a flurry of friend of the court (FOC) investigations, referee hearings and...
FAMILY LAW 61: FINDING NO ERRORS WARRANTING REVERSAL, THE COURT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER THAT APPELLANT’S OUTSTANDING CHILD SUPORT ARREARAGE WAS STILL COLLECTIBLE.
BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and his ex-wife, Appellee, divorced in 1994. The consent judgment of divorce ordered Appellant to pay child support for his two children. In 2001, Appellant pleaded guilty to several criminal offenses...
FAMILY LAW 54: The court held that the trial court did not err by using the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating child and spousal support.
The parties were married for over 20 years before plaintiff filed for divorce. At the divorce trial, the parties’ incomes were a source of contention. Plaintiff wanted the trial court to rely on the parties’ 2018 incomes when calculating...
When a relationship just isn’t working, there is power in ending a bad situation. Many people rush to get a divorce, but there are other options for couples to explore. Legal separation is another avenue people use to gain distance from each...
During their marriage, the parties had eight children, five of whom are still minors. In the parties’ 2014 consent judgment of divorce, plaintiff was awarded primary physical custody of the children, and the parties were awarded joint...
Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint a receiver noting that defendant had defied the court’s authority and was found in contempt, that defendant had refused to pay child support and other money owing to plaintiff, and that defendant had refused to offer any payment or plan for payment relative to his obligations.
Money is an important factor whenever you work with a professional. When you go through a divorce, your money and time can get even tighter. Hiring a cheap lawyer to handle your case could be attractive. However, they will end up letting you down....
When a relationship comes to an end, there are many things to consider. It can be difficult to decide how to proceed with legally ending your marriage. If you are on speaking terms with your spouse, you may have another option to separate more...
FAMILY LAW 42: Motion to modify custody denied due to lack of supporting affidavits or documentation.
The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters. The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.
In this case, plaintiff received approximately $57,000 or $67,000 from her parents. The trial court included the money from plaintiff’s parents as income for its 2017 child support calculation.
FAMILY LAW 33: Defendant posited that he was an affiliated father under the Revocation of Paternity Act.
Following entry of the judgment of divorce, plaintiff filed a motion for revocation of an acknowledged father’s paternity under MCL 722.14371 of the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA).
FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.
FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
DIVORCE 25: Judgement of divorce ordered children as beneficiary on life insurance policies presently outstanding.
In order to provide security for the payment of his support obligations in the event of his death, the judgment also ordered decedent to irrevocably designate the minor children of the parties as the beneficiary on any and all life insurance policies presently outstanding upon his life, until his duty to support shall cease.
The trial court’s opinion and order terminated respondent’s parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.51(6) (failure to comply with a support order for two years or more and failure to visit, contact, or communicate with the child for two years or more).
In an issue of first impression, the court held that a support order is irrelevant in determining whether a child who has turned 18 but is still attending high school is residing on a "full-time" basis with the support payee
In a published case, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order to the extent it ruled that compliance with the parenting time order constituted "full-time" and remanded for it to consider (where relevant) the Workman factors in...