MICHIGAN DIVORCE 78: Mother and father were both unable to adequately parent the children.

Mother and father were married and shared four children: LF1, LF2, BF, and KF. Father and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence, and they both abused substances. They ultimately divorced, and it was determined by mother’s family members that mother and father were unable to adequately parent the children.

In 2014, W successfully petitioned for custody of BF and KF. In 2015, H successfully obtained custody of LF2, and Gregory and Nicole, mother’s parents, were granted custody of LF1.

Change of Custody

In 2018, mother began to demonstrate sobriety. Father also began making positive changes in his life.

In April 2021, father moved the trial court to grant him sole legal and physical custody of the children, arguing proper cause or a change of circumstances existed to revisit the custody orders. A clinical social worker recommended that the children be returned to father’s care in a gradual manner and with therapeutic support because of the amount of time the children had spent in the care of their guardians.

After father filed his motion for custody, the mother moved for custody of LF1.

Trial Court

The contested custody hearing was held over several months. The parties disputed father’s ability to parent the children and provide them with a stable environment. After interviewing the children in camera after the close of proofs, the trial court made detailed findings of fact on the record. The trial court reviewed the best-interest factors contained in MCL 722.23, and noted the relevant standard of proof was clear and convincing evidence. After reviewing the best-interest factors, the trial court continued the custody arrangements for BF, KF, LF2 and granted mother sole physical custody of LF1.

LF1 began to spend a significant amount of time with mother in the months leading up to the custody determination, and evidence supports LF1 and mother were bonded.

Experience with Michigan Divorces

In order to protect your parental and financial rights, it is important to have an experienced and understanding divorce attorney by your side at every step of the way. We are committed to providing each of our clients with quality legal representation and superior service.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW: DHHS filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over the child.

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.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 96: The trial court did not have the authority to modify the out-of-state support order.

The trial court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the out-of-state spousal-support order. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to terminate spousal support.

MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW 93: Parents’ relationship had become so bitter court determined it was necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of custody.

The trial court found that clear and convincing evidence established that a change of custody was in AH’s best interests, noting the parties were unable or unwilling to work together to reach an agreement on AH’s education and medical treatment.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 21: Plaintiff file a motion to enforcement the judgment of divorce.

The referee recommended that the trial court grant plaintiff’s request for enforcement of the judgment and require the parties to comply with its provisions and further recommended that plaintiff’s request for attorney fees be preserved and awarded should plaintiff have to return to court.

MICHIGAN DIVORCE 76: Defendant had not exercised his parenting time with the children to warrant the award of any child support amount.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment and child support. Plaintiff characterized the failed parenting-time arrangement as newly discovered evidence that negated her child support obligation.

DIVORCE 75: The trial court agreed that the long morning commute on school days satisfied the threshold burden for reconsidering custody.

The court expressed concern regarding plaintiff’s failure to appreciate how her actions left the children in a position of having to keep secrets from defendant, caused them uncertainty about their future schooling, and made them feel guilty for telling defendant the truth.

DIVORCE 74: Tax debt generated by the sale of business would be divided equally between the parties.

Plaintiff claims that this debt should be Defendant’s debt alone since he controlled the finances and she had little input on what happened with the money gained from the sale. The court disagrees and finds that she cannot enjoy the fruits of the marital business decisions for 17 years and then disavow herself the debt that comes from those same business decisions.

DIVORCE 73: Plaintiff filed a complaint for separate maintenance once husband was disabled.

The trial court agreed that third-party intervention in domestic-relations matters was only permitted in limited circumstances that did not apply to DHHS, and denied DHHS’s motion for reconsideration.

DIVORCE 72: Defendant asserts the trial court failed to acknowledge the seven-day rule.

MCR 2.602(B)(3), the so-called seven-day rule, allows a party to serve a copy of the proposed judgment or order on the other parties, with a notice to them that it will be submitted to the court for signing if no written objections to its accuracy or completeness are filed with the court clerk within 7 days after service of the notice.