Under Michigan law, a couple that is maintaining a marital relationship may not enter into an enforceable contract that anticipates and encourages a future separation or divorce. If a postnuptial agreement seeks to promote marriage by keeping a husband and wife together, Michigan courts may enforce the agreement if it is equitable to do so.
Before ordering a course of involuntary mental health treatment or of care and treatment at a center, the court must receive a written report or oral testimony describing the type and extent of treatment that will be provided to the individual and the appropriateness and adequacy of this treatment.
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.
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.
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 trial court’s observation that defendant was able to live in the house rent-free for 14 years was an additional equitable reason for rejecting defendant’s claim that she should be awarded part of the value of the real property.
The fact that this agreement as to custody and parenting time did not resolve all the disputes between the parties, with the court recognizing that some other little things purportedly agreed to at mediation were going to be added to the judgment, does not render the partial agreement invalid. Plaintiff is entitled to a trial on these remaining, unresolved issues.
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).
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 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.
The court ruled that title to the land prevails and that once the deed was signed, the property became the undivided whole interest for both the decedent and appellee and became appellee’s property upon the decedent’s death. Consequently, the court concluded that the prenuptial agreement did not have any impact on the property rights of appellee in this case.
The party requesting the change of domicile of the minor child has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the change is warranted.
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’s attorney stated that the total fees incurred by both sides are far beyond what he usually sees in divorce cases. Regarding the reasonableness of five depositions, he testified that he has not conducted five depositions in an average divorce case in the last few years.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued that defendant had not established proper cause or a change in circumstances as required under the standards.
In essence, while a bankruptcy court could discharge the debts, they still remained owing to that party to whom they were payable as support, which is not dischargeable.
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.
Despite having signed the proposed divorce judgment, defendant filed an answer to the divorce complaint on February 28, 2017, and on March 2, 2017, she filed a response to plaintiff’s motion for entry of proofs and judgment, along with a motion to restore her possession of the marital home. Defendant claimed arguments premised on unconscionability.
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.
The appeals court agreed with the trial court that plaintiff’s conduct in filing for divorce in another county while the Oakland County divorce judgment was still in effect violated that judgment of divorce.
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.
In this case, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it made a change from sole to joint legal custody without determining the established custodial environment.
A contempt proceeding for failure to comply with a parenting time order is generally considered civil in nature.
The threshold to changing custody, finding a change of circumstance or proper cause are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.
This case involves parties who, after living in Michigan for several years, returned to their native country of India in 2014 with their three children. In 2016, plaintiff returned to Michigan and filed for divorce.
In this case, the court is asked whether a presumed father may, in a divorce action, challenge his paternity of a child born during the course of the marriage despite the fact that he did not raise the issue within three years of the child’s birth.
The petitioner has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the noncustodial parent’s rights is warranted. In order to terminate parental rights, the court must find that the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) are both satisfied.
Although the trial court recognized that a marital estate will normally be divided 50/50, it elected to award 60% to defendant and 40% to plaintiff.
The Court recognizes that the object in awarding spousal support is to balance the incomes and needs of the parties so that neither will be impoverished; spousal support is to be based on what is just and reasonable under the circumstances of the case.
Given her noncompliance with her service plan and her lack of progress in addressing her serious mental illnesses, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable expectation that respondent will be able to provide proper care.
