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

In 2018, H filed a domestic-relations complaint against M. The trial court entered a judgment of custody providing that the parties shall have joint legal and joint physical custody of the parties’ minor child, CKM, and that the parties shall share parenting time equally. These proceedings occurred in the domestic relations section of the family division of Wayne Circuit Court.

Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)

in September 2020, the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) filed its petition in Wayne Circuit Court requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CKM. The child-protective matter was referred to the juvenile section of the family division. The petition alleged that H inhales (huffs) household spray chemicals whose volatile vapors are breathed in and then she passes out or becomes incoherent with the children present. Her substance abuse affects her ability to parent.

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.

Review Hearings

The trial court held several dispositional review hearings. As of May 5, 2021, CKM was living with M but had supervised visitations with H, and H was seeking employment. The goal continued to be reunification. However, DHHS requested that M seek and obtain a custody order for CKM. Accordingly, M filed a motion for sole physical and legal custody of CKM.

The trial court was informed that CKM had been living with M since early 2020. The trial court thus found sufficient change in circumstances for the Court to address the issue of custody. The trial court next briefly heard testimony from M and H about the best-interests factors under MCL 722.23. Before issuing its custody ruling, the trial court asked the DHHS caseworker for her position, and the caseworker recommended that H have supervised parenting time until we get some more drug screens in.

With these findings in mind, the trial court ruled that M and H would share joint legal custody because they seem to be able to work quite well together. However, the trial court ruled that M would have sole physical custody, particularly because DHHS currently recommended that H only have supervised parenting time.

Legal Assistance with Custody Issues in Michigan

If you are separating from the mother or father of your children, it is important to protect your custodial rights. If the process does not turn out like you thought it would, you may not have the custody you deserve. Seek the advice and guidance of an experienced family law attorney who will be by your side every step of the way.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

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

Father and mother’s relationship involved domestic violence, and they both abused substances.

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.