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.
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).
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.
Custody decisions require findings under all the best interest factors, but parenting time decisions may be made with findings on only the contested issues.
The fact that plaintiff offered defendant the RFR for numerous Tuesday overnights over the course of approximately nine months does not support defendant’s position that a change of circumstances or proper cause has arisen.
The court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.
Defendant ultimately not being in full compliance did not make the filing of the motions or the signing of them by defense counsel frivolous.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that defendant had not established proper cause or a change in circumstances as required under the standards.
At issue in this case is whether Plaintiff satisfied the jurisdictional residency requirement contained in MCL 552.9(1), which provides that a judgment of divorce shall not be granted by a court in this state in an action for divorce unless the complainant or defendant has resided in this state for 180 days immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
CPS informed defendant that his repeated calls and complaints against the Plaintiff-mother, in which there was not a preponderance of evidence to support the complaint, are ‘counting against him’ at this point.
The Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 authorizes a trial court to issue custody and parenting-time orders that are in the child’s best interests. A showing of proper cause or change of circumstances is required to modify a parenting-time order. The movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to determine ALF’s established custodial environment before it modified the custody order. Plaintiff correctly states that the trial court failed to determine the established custodial environment.
Pursuant to the Friend of the Court Act, MCL 552.501 et seq., when a domestic relations motion is submitted to a referee for hearing, a party who files a timely objection to the referee’s recommendation is entitled to have the matter reviewed by the trial court. MCL 552.507(4).
The circuit court awarded defendant sole legal and physical custody of the minor children and awarded grandparenting time to plaintiffs.
The court found that plaintiff would rather have her children in daycare than have them spend time with their father.
The appeals court concurred with the findings of the trial court that the assertions which provided the basis for defendant’s motion are within the bounds of normal life circumstances typical of 13-year-old teenagers.
In this case, respondent’s counsel failed to notify respondent of his intent to withdraw from representation, and the court failed to notify respondent of the date of the termination trial.
With regard to the trial court’s order concerning preschool placement, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by issuing the order without conducting an evidentiary hearing, making findings of fact, or analyzing the best-interest factors.
