Domestic Relations Review
ABSENT AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS MANDATED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF MICHIGAN’S DOMESTIC RELATIONS ARBITRATION ACT
Miller v. Miller, (Published #242270), November 30, 2004
ORAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER IS SUFFICIENT ACTUAL NOTICE TO DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT AGGRAVATED STALKING CONVICTION
People v. Logan, (Unpublished #24340), November 23, 2004
CHILD’S DESIRE TO LIVE WITH A PARENT SEEKING A CHANGE OF CUSTODY OF THAT CHILD ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT “PROPER CAUSE” OR “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES” REQUIRING THE COURT TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Michel v. Michel, (Unpublished #256395), November 9, 2004
A FATHER MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR FELONY NON-SUPPORT EVEN THOUGH MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE YOUNGEST CHILD HAD TURNED EIGHTEEN
People of the State of Michigan v Vito Monaco, (Docket #247383, decided June 24, 2004)
A POST NUPTIAL AGREEMENT IS NOT PRE-EMPTED BY ERISA LAWTop of Page
Pruchno v. Pruchno, (Unpublished #245583), July 8, 2004
A STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, i.e., PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER, IS A REVIEW FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION
In the Matter of Cassandra Fahndrich v Brian Coats, Court of Appeals #247514, unpublished opinion dated June 15, 2004
A FRIEND OF THE COURT REFEREE CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION IS NOT BINDING EVEN IF THE PARTIES STIPULATE THAT THE REFEREES DECISION WILL RESOLVE THE DISPUTE
Sheila Harvey v Harry Louis Harvey, (Michigan Supreme Court, Published #124234), June 9, 2004
FELONY NON SUPPORT IS A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE
People v. Adams, ___Mich App___(2004), #251213, 5/18/04
BEFORE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING CAN BE HELD ON A MOTION TO CHANGE CUSTODY, THE MOVING PARTY MUST ESTABLISH PROPER CAUSE OR CHANGETop of Page
Frye v. Policht, No. 249541, April 13, 2004 (Unpublished)
PLAINTIFF HAS NO STANDING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY WHERE DEFENDANT SECRETLY MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AFTER THE CHILD WAS CONCEIVED
Pickering v. Allore, No. 243836, April 1, 2004 (Unpublished)
A THIRD PARTY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING IN A CHILD CUSTODY ACTION UNDER MCL 722.26c ON THE BASIS OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT BEING “MISSING” BECAUSE S/HE IS COMATOSE. ADDITIONALLY, STANDING FOR SUCH A THIRD PARTY DOES NOT EXIST BASED ON 1) THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD BEING SERVED BY GIVING THE 3rd PARTY STANDING OR 2) THE 3rd PARTY’S STATUS AS CONSERVATOR FOR THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (WHEN IN REALITY THE ACTION IS BROUGHT FOR THE CONSERVATOR INDIVIDUALLY NOT AS THE FIDUCIARY OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT) UNDER MCR 2.201
Lee v. Robinson (Published #252476) March 25, 2004
DEROSE SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO MAKE VOID AB INITIO ANY MICHIGAN GRANDPARENT VISITATION ORDERS ENTERED PURSUANT TO MCL 722.27b. THEREFORE, NO CONTEMPT CITATIONS CAN ENTER BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF SUCH GRANDPARENT VISITATION ORDERS
Johnson v. White (Published #241414 &241992) March 23, 2004
TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS ENTERED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING DO NOT BAR, AT TRIAL, THE FULL PRESENTATION OF PROOFS WHICH PREDATE THE ENTRY OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER. THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH ONE PARTY MAY HAVE AN ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH THE CHILD AND EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO ALLEGED FACTS TO SHOW A “CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES” OR “PROPER CAUSE” SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER. IN CAMERA INTERVIEWS OF CHILDREN TO DETERMINE PARENTAL PREFERENCE ARE NOT TO BE UNDERTAKEN IN A VACUUM. INQUIRY TO DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR AND LEGITIMACY OF THE PREFERENCE ARE PERMITTED
Thompson v. Thompson (Published #250504) March 23, 2004
IF GRANTING A CHANGE OF DOMICILE PETITION UNDER MCL 722.31 RESULTS IN A CHANGE IN THE CHILD’S ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT, AN ANALYSIS MUST ALSO BE MADE TO DETERMINE IF THAT CHANGE IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Iwanska v. Nielsen (Unpublished #251396) March 23, 2004
PAYMENTS (INVOLUNTARY OR NOT) MADE AFTER THE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION ENDS BUT BEFORE THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD RAN EXTENDS THE STATUTE FROM THE DATE OF THAT LAST PAYMENTTop of Page
Wayne County Social Services Director v. Yates (Published #244191) March 9, 2004
THE STATUTORY LIFE INSURANCE PROVISION REQUIRED BY MCL 552.101 CONTAINED IN A CONSENT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE CONSTITUTES A VALID WAIVER OF A FORMER SPOUSE’S RIGHTS AS BENEFICIARY UNDER AN ERISA PLAN LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM AND DOES NOT VIOLATE PREEMPTION PROVISIONS OF ERISA LAW
Estate of Rowley v. Mac Innes (Published #241649), January 8, 2004
Top of Page2004
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-20-05
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov