Domestic Relations Review
AN ORDER OF FILIATION CANNOT BE ENTERED UNDER THE PATERNITY ACT, MCLA 722.711, ET SEQ., IF, UNDER THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE ACT, MCLA 722.1001, ET SEQ., A PROPER ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE WAS PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED AND HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED
Gregory G. Sinicropi v Holly V. Mazurek and Martin A. Powers, ___Mich App___ 2006, #26800, 12/7/06
MCR 2.603(B)(1)(a) REQUIRES THAT NOTICE OF THE HEARING TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE MUST BE AFFORDED TO AN “APPEARING” DEFENDANT IN ORDER FOR THE JUDGMENT TO BE PROPERLY ENTERED
Green v. Green, (Unpublished #261537), October 24, 2006
THE MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT FORMULA MANUAL DOES NOT ALLOW DEDUCTIONS FOR THEORETICAL TAXES, AS OPPOSED TO TAXES ACTUALLY INCURRED, AND BECAUSE LIMITING DEDUCTIONS TO TAXES ACTUALLY INCURRED IS NOT UNJUST OR INAPPROPRIATE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATION
Brenda Jo Peterson v Howard Robert Peterson, For Publication, No. 260591, October 24, 2006
WHERE BOTH PARTIES ENGAGED IN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENDANT-HUSBAND BURNED DOWN THE MARITAL HOME IN A “A DRAMATIC HOWL OF GRIEF”, THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR BY CONSIDERING “FAULT” WHEN DIVIDING THE MARITAL ESTATE
Linda Sue League v Robert Ray League, Unpublished, No. 261058, October 19, 2006
THE PARENTS OF A CHILD CANNOT BARGAIN AWAY A CHILD’S RIGHT TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE CHILD SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARENTS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE RESULT OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT MAY BE THAT THE CHILD BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE
Donkers v. Caladro et al., (Unpublished #268403), September 19, 2006
SUBSTANCE ABUSE ON THE PART OF ONE PARENT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT VISITATIONS BETWEEN THAT PARENT AND HIS/HER CHILDREN BE SUPERVISED. RATHER, THAT CONCERN IS TO BE PROVIDED THE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN DETERMINING WHAT PARENTING TIME WITH THE SUBSTANCE ABUSING PARENT IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS. A DEVIATION FROM THE MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT FORMULA IS NOT APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE PARENTS’ INCOME DISPARITY
Tykocki v.Tykocki, (Unpublished #266885), September 19, 2006
A DE NOVO REVIEW OF A REFEREE”S HEARING UNDER MCR 3.215 MUST BE MORE THAN SIMPLY THE JUDGE’S REVIEW OF THE REFEREE’S NOTES AND THE EXHIBITS OFFERED. BEFORE MAKING A DECISION, THE REVIEW MUST INCLUDE THE COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE REFEREE’S HEARING, THE OTHER EVIDENCE OFFERED AT THAT HEARING AND RECEIPT OF ANY SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO THE REFEREE AT THE EARLIER HEARING
Eifler v. Eifler, (Unpublished #267395), September 19, 2006
THE REQUIREMENT OF SHOWING A “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES” OR “PROPER CAUSE” DOES NOT APPLY WHEN ESTABLISHING AN ORIGINAL CHILD CUSTODY ORDER BUT ONLY WHEN A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING COURT ORDER FOR CUSTODY IS SOUGHT TO BE MODIFIED
Dewitt v. Simpson, (Unpublished #268392), September 14, 2006
A SOCIAL WORKER CAN ONLY QUALIFY AS AN EXPERT TO CONDUCT A CUSTODY EVALUATION NOT TO COMPLETE A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF A MINOR CHILD OR HER PARENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGTop of Page
Packard v. Bickle, (Unpublished # 262530 & 264561), September 7, 2006
ACCORDING TO MCL 722.31(5), WHEN THERE IS AN ORDER DETERMINING OR MODIFYING CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME OF A CHILD, THE ORDER MUST INCLUDE A PROVISION REGARDING HOW THE PARTIES WILL HANDLE ANY RESIDENCE CHANGES
Mitchell v. Mitchell, (Unpublished, #266161), Michigan Court of Appeals, August 17, 2006
MICHIGAN'S PATERNITY ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE EITHER DUE PROCESS OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. A FATHER HAS NO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO ESCAPE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR A CHILD HE FATHERED ON THE BASIS THAT THE MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO EITHER BEAR THE CHILD OR TO TERMINATE IT
Dubay v. Wells, et al., (No. 06-11016-BC) United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Northern Division, July 17th, 2006
A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH FINDS “NO CHILDREN WERE BORN OF THIS MARRIAGE AND NONE ARE EXPECTED” IS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT A CHILD CONCEIVED DURING THE MARRIAGE BUT BORN AFTER THE MARRIAGE IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF THAT MARRIAGE GIVING THE CHILD’S PUTATIVE FATHER STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE PATERNITY ACT
Barnes v. Jeudevine, (Michigan Supreme Court #129606), July 26, 2006
ABSENT FRAUD, COERCION OR DURESS THE ADULTS TO A MARRIAGE HAVE THE RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO DECIDE WHAT IS A FAIR AND APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND OUR COURTS SHOULD NOT REWRITE SUCH AGREEMENTS
Lentz v. Lentz, (Published #257898), July 6,2006
A NON SEXUAL EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIP MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ASSESSING FAULT FOR THE MARITAL BREAKDOWN AND IN DETERMINING THE PROPERTY DIVISION IN A DIVORCE CASE
Crawford v. Crawford, (Unpublished #259108), May 16, 2006
WHETHER A NON MODIFIABLE PERIODIC PAYMENT LABELED AS “ALIMONY” IN A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE IS NON-DISCHARGEABLE “SPOUSAL SUPPORT” UNDER BANKRUPTCY LAW WILL TURN ON THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED NOT THE LABEL PLACED ON THE PAYMENTS BY THE PARTIES IN THEIR DIVORCE ACTION OR ON ANY OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE JUDGMENT CONVERTING DISCHARGEABLE DEBTS TO NON-DISCHARGEABLE ONES
Andru v. Ajemian, (Bankruptcy Court-ED MI, #05-86582), March 14, 2006
A TRIAL COURT CANNOT APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR A LITIGANT IN A CHANGE OF CUSTODY ACTION WITHOUT FIRST HOLDING AN ANCILLARY COMPETENCY HEARING AND DETERMINING THE PARTY TO BE INCOMPETENT AND IN NEED OF A GUARDIAN
Bargerstock v. Bagerstock, (Unpublished #263740), April 25, 2006
A PARTY AWARDED A JOINT TENANCY INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE UNDER A CONSENT JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE IS ENTITLED TO FILE A SEPARATE ACTION AGAINST HIS CO-TENANT TO COLLECT HIS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE RENTS AND PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM A THIRD PARTY OCCUPANT OF THAT REALTY
Decker v. Decker, (Unpublished #266446), April 25, 2006
IN THE CASE THAT ANOTHER STATE COURT FINDS THAT THEIR COURT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO DECIDE PARENTING TIME, THE MICHIGAN COURT HAS NOT ERRED BY CONTINUING JURISDICTION UNDER THE UCCJA
Young v Punturo, (Published, No. 223586), Mich App, April 11, 2006, on reconsideration
IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A VALID MARRIAGE THERE MUST BE A LICENSE, CONSENT BY THE PARTIES AND A SOLEMNIZATION OF THE MARITAL ARRANGEMENT
Ellehaf v. Tarraf, (Unpublished #257222), March 23, 2006
THE TRIAL COURT MUST AFFORD A PARTY REQUESTING A DE NOVO REVIEW OF A REFEREE’S RECOMMENDED ORDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AT THE JUDICIAL HEARING BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER ADOPTING THE REFEREE’S RECOMMENDATION
Mapes v. Eaton, (Unpublished #266144), March 21, 2006
THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE TRIAL COURT FROM RECONSIDERING THE ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT OF A CHILD ON REMAND FROM THE APPELLATE COURT IF THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THAT ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT HAVE MATERIALLY CHANGED. A SEPARATION OF SIBLINGS IS SUFFICIENT “CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES” TO ALLOW FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER A CHANGE OF CUSTODY PETITION
Ellis v. Evers, (Unpublished #264700), March 21, 2006
A COURT MAY PROPERLY GRANT A CHANGE OF DOMICILE MOTION WHERE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT’S NEW SPOUSE HAS A JOB OPPORTUNITY THAT IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR BOTH THE CUSTODIAL PARENT AND THE CHILD AND WHERE THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT HAS BEEN AFFORDED SUBSTITUTE PARENTING TIME TO PRESERVE HIS/HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDTop of Page
Williams v. Hubbard, (Unpublished #262865), March 21, 2006
IN AWARDING SPOUSAL SUPPORT, THE COURT MUST LOOK TO THE PARTIES ACTUAL ABILITIES, NEEDS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE OBJECTIVE BEING TO BALANCE THE INCOMES AND NEEDS OF THE PARTIES IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT IMPOVERISH EITHER PARTY
Sanders v. Sanders, Michigan Court of Appeals, February 16, 2006
THE VIOLATION OF MCL 750.165(1), THE FELONY NON-SUPPORT STATUTE, IS NOT A CONTINUING OFFENSE AND IS LIMITED BY MCL 767.24(5), WHICH CALLS FOR A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD OF SIX YEARS FOR THE OFFENSE
People v. Monaco, Supreme Court of Michigan, February 1, 2006
IN ORDERING A PARTY TO PAY ANOTHER’S COBRA COSTS AS ALIMONY, THE COSTS OF THAT COBRA MUST BE KNOWN AND CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE EQUITABLE NATURE OF THE TOTAL SPOUSAL SUPPORT AWARD MADE IN A DIVORCE CASE
Murphy v. Murphy, (Unpublished #256050), January 19, 2006
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTIONS INVOLVING PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER VIOLATIONS MUST BE PROVED BY A BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD
Gooding v. Gooding, (Unpublished #254528), January 12, 2006
IN A CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTE INVOLVING A MICHIGAN COURT AND AN OUT-OF-STATE COURT, THE MICHIGAN COURT MUST FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF MCL 722.1206, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE MICHIGAN COURT MUST DETERMINE IF A CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY COMMENCED IN THE SISTER STATE, EXAMINE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES AND CONFER WITH THE SISTER STATE’S COURT. A COMPLAINT FOR CHILD SUPPORT FILED UNDER THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A COMMENCEMENT TO CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS
Fisher v Belcher, (Published, #263083) Michigan Court of Appeals, December 15, 2005
A MAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS OF PARENTING TIME UNDER THE EQUITABLE PARENTING DOCTRINE WHEN HE IS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER, WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE MOTHER AT TIME OF CONCEPTION OR BIRTH AND AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTHOOD HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OR BEEN REVOKED
Killingbeck, et al. v Killingbeck, (Published, #258358) Michigan Court of Appeals, December 6, 2005
Top of Page2006
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-19-07
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