FAMILY LAW 80: The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to change domicile.

This case concerns a custody dispute between plaintiff and defendant related to their minor child, KSJ. Plaintiff and defendant were in an on and off relationship for approximately six years, having broken up in approximately 2017.

Consent Judgment

In July 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for child support from defendant. In October 2016, a consent judgment of support was entered. The consent judgment awarded plaintiff sole physical custody of KSJ, awarded defendant parenting time on an alternating schedule, addressed parenting time for holidays and summer breaks, and ordered defendant to pay child support to plaintiff.

Emergency Motion

In September 2020, defendant filed an emergency motion for change of custody, asserting that plaintiff had been evicted from a residence and had moved into a shelter without notifying defendant of either fact. Defendant also expressed concern that KSJ would become homeless and stated that he could provide a suitable home for her.

Plaintiff responded, indicating the move to the shelter was temporary and that she had informed defendant of her eviction and move. In addition, plaintiff moved for a change of domicile. Plaintiff sought to move to Houghton Lake, where she had been approved for housing assistance for an apartment. Defendant responded, rejecting plaintiff’s suggested parenting-time adjustments because her proposed move was 2½ hours away from defendant.

Friend of the Court

The case was referred to the Friend of the Court for investigation. Friend of the Court counselor submitted a report and recommendation to the trial court, which recommended denying plaintiff’s request for a change of domicile but not changing the current custody. However, that if a change of domicile was granted, defendant should maintain physical custody.

Trial Court

The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to change domicile. 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. The trial court also found that there was no testimony regarding the quality of the school district in Houghton Lake or how it compared to KSJ’s current school.

Assistance With Post-Decree Modifications

It is important to remember that decrees regarding child support, child custody, and parenting time are not always final. Circumstances change all the time, which is why it is possible to seek a post-decree modification. Contact Aldrich Legal Services and schedule a free consultation if you would like to meet with one of our lawyers about your case.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Family Law 84: Trial court must issue a PPO if it determines that there is reasonable cause.

The petitioner bears the burden of establishing reasonable cause for issuance of a PPO, and of establishing a justification for the continuance of a PPO at a hearing on the respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

DIVORCE 70: Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for temporary custody of the marital home and children.

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.

DIVORCE 69: Trial court enforcement of marriage settlement agreement drafted prior to divorce.

The parties had several meetings about dissolving their marriage and dividing their assets. These conversations culminated in a marriage settlement agreement, drafted by D, which the parties both signed in June 2016.

DIVORCE 68: A change that substantially reduces the time a parent spends with a child could potentially cause a change in the established custodial environment.

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.

DIVORCE 67: The parties agreed to submit their post judgment of divorce issues to binding arbitration.

The arbitration agreement broadly granted the arbitrator the authority to decide the post judgment of divorce issues that were pending before the trial court.

DIVORCE 66: Defendant not entitled to any portion of the house’s appreciated value.

When one significantly assists in the acquisition or growth of a spouse’s separate asset, the court may consider the contribution as having a distinct value deserving of compensation.

DIVORCE 65: Both parties were ordered to cooperate with the supervised parenting time and reunification therapy.

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.

FAMILY LAW 78: Trial court denied respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO.

Respondent moved to terminate the PPO. Respondent asserted that petitioner’s allegations were false. A proceeding on respondent’s motion to terminate was held with a family court referee, not a trial court judge.

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

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.