At the jurisdictional trial, H admitted that she had a substance abuse addiction that somewhat affected her ability to parent her children. The trial court ordered that CKM would remain with M until the custody hearing in a few months.
The court recognize that defendant has made great strides in her sobriety. But the Child Custody Act requires courts to focus on the best interest of the children and to provide a stable environment for children that is free of unwarranted custody changes.
The trial court discussed the difference between the parties’ care for WPS’s medical needs, noting plaintiff was much more involved and defendant’s refusal to provide his schedule contributed to his own frustrations regarding his lack of involvement.
The court determined that plaintiff had established by clear and convincing evidence that the change of domicile was in the best interests of the children.
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.
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 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...
Before considering a change of custody, a trial court must find that there has been a change of circumstances or proper cause.
In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...
BASIC FACTS
The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...
BACKGROUND
The parties have a minor child (ABF), who was twelve-years-old at the time of the proceedings. Defendant had primary physical custody of ABF until she...
PERTINENT FACTS
In July 2017, plaintiff and defendant divorced by consent judgment. Under the judgment of divorce, the parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. On September 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
A contempt proceeding for failure to comply with a parenting time order is generally considered civil in nature.
The court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether the change was in the child's best interests, noting it "failed to make reviewable findings of fact regarding whether a modification of defendant's parenting...
Defendant and the plaintiff-mother are the parents of an eight-year-old girl. The trial court awarded sole physical custody of the child to defendant with 6 hours of supervised parenting time per week to plaintiff, dependent on her psychological...
The court held that the trial court properly granted the plaintiff-father's request for a change of domicile, changing physical custody and parenting time of the parties' minor children. However, it did not properly resolve the issues of the...
