Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results

When parents are unable to cooperate and make joint decisions, a trial court may be required to grant sole custody to one parent.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

Defendant filed an answer, countering that it was in the children’s best interests for the parties to share joint legal and joint physical custody. During the divorce proceedings, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children, which the trial court granted.

If the proposed change alters the established custodial environment, the party seeking the change must demonstrate that the change is in the child’s best interests.

Defendant also argued that SG’s attainment of school age was a change of circumstances; however, the fact that a child has grown old enough to attend school is a normal life change.

The trial court noted plaintiff’s testimony that the move was designed to provide KSJ with more stability, however, that since the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff’s employment changed again, with her new work hours resulting in frustrating the current parenting time exchange schedule.

In Michigan, the Child Custody Act of 1970 (CCA) governs custody, parenting time, and child support issues for minor children; it is the exclusive means by which to pursue child custody rights.

The trial court entered a consent judgment of divorce, awarding sole legal and physical custody of the children to mother, but awarding father supervised parenting time.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

The trial court found that the parties mutually agreed to place the children in school in Michigan upon J’s move to California. That decision changed the children’s lives.

The parties were married for five and a half years with only one child, divorcing in December 2018. Plaintiff continued to live in the marital home in Washtenaw County after defendant moved out. Following the divorce, defendant moved to Fowlerville....

An established custodial environment may exist in more than one home and can be established as a result of a temporary custody order, in violation of a custody order, or in the absence of a custody order.

The parties married in 2013 while in Florida. Plaintiff was originally from Michigan, and defendant was originally from New Jersey. The child, JV, was born in 2014. The parties separated approximately one year later. The Florida courts granted the...

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.

The trial court found that plaintiff was not willing or able to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between JB and defendant.

Before considering a change of custody, a trial court must find that there has been a change of circumstances or proper cause.

D and T began a relationship when D was separated from his wife. After T became pregnant with the minor child, D and his wife reconciled. A few months after the minor child was born. In May 2015, an order was entered with the consent of the...

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in July 2017. The judgment of divorce stated that the parties would have joint-legal and joint-physical custody, and provided for a parenting-time schedule.  Defendant filed many motions to change custody,...

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...

BACKGROUND MC was born in the summer of 2014 at which time the parties resided together. In November 2014, plaintiff-father filed a complaint for sole physical and joint legal custody of MC. The complaint and subsequent motions presented highly...

FACTUAL BACKGROUND The parties were involved in a romantic relationship when the minor child who is the subject of these proceedings was born on February 9, 2006. The parties did not live together and were never married. Approximately one year...

BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant have three children together—ET, KT, and CT.  Plaintiff and defendant’s relationship ended in 2013.  Following the end of their relationship, the trial court entered a consent order for...

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...

Though never married, the parties in this case share a son. On November 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a paternity complaint, claiming defendant as the child’s father, and alleging that defendant was of sufficient ability to provide support. On...

In this case, the parties divorced by consent judgment in February 2018. Under the divorce judgment, the parties shared joint legal custody and plaintiff had primary physical custody of their minor child, who has special needs. In the divorce...

In this case, B and S’s relationship began to deteriorate after AB’s birth. Money was tight and B claimed that S rejected B’s requests that she return to work. S, on the other hand, accused B of belittling her role as a...

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...

The parties were never married, but they have a five-year-old daughter (ES). At the time the child was born, the parties lived in Colorado. When the child was approximately six months old, the parties agreed to a Parenting Plan in the District Court...

In March 2018, defendant filed a motion to change the children’s domicile from Jackson, Michigan to Mishawaka, Indiana, a town approximately 140 miles away.

In this case, defendant requested joint legal custody. He testified that he believed that he and plaintiff would be able to co-parent effectively.

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.

To minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes in children’s custody, a trial court may only modify children’s custody if the moving party first establishes a proper cause or a change of circumstances. The purpose of this framework is to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

Defendant sent plaintiff text messages strongly indicating that she would not comply with the order limiting her parenting time, the trial court entered a second ex parte temporary order suspending defendant’s parenting time, which was later modified to grant defendant supervised parenting time.

Because the trial court found that an established custodial environment existed with both parties and acknowledged that plaintiff’s request for sole physical custody would change the established custodial environment, it held plaintiff to the appropriate clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in December 2008 and had one minor child born during the marriage, AM. Plaintiff also had a daughter from a prior marriage, who is not at issue in this matter. During the parties’ marriage, plaintiff was...

Plaintiff requested sole legal custody, arguing that she and defendant had difficulty co-parenting and that defendant would not agree to medical treatment for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, need for orthodontic work, and need for vision testing and glasses. Plaintiff also requested an alternating weekly or biweekly schedule during the summer, which would increase her overall parenting time.

The trial court found that proper cause was established because the children’s health and education are two very important subjects relating to custody. When parents cannot agree on a child’s medical treatment and educational course, these topics can have significant effects on a child’s well-being.

The court found the requested change of domicile will not change the children’s established custodial environment. Additionally, at the January 8, 2019 hearing, the trial court discusses the established custodial environment, and father’s counsel acknowledges that the established custodial environment is with the mother.

The appeals court was concerned with the trial court’s minimization of the effect of the domestic violence in the home upon the parties’ children.