Domestic Relations Review
UNDER MCL 552.603b, A PAYER WHO FILED FOR MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT MAY BE ENTITLED TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IF THE PAYEE OF CHILD SUPPORT FAILED TO DISCLOSE INCOME OR MISREPRESENTED THAT INCOME AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING WHICH SET THAT SUPPORT
Harvey v. Harvey, (Unpublished, #285523), 11/17/09)
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW IN MICHIGAN IS THAT A PUTATIVE FATHER OF A CHILD BORN IN WEDLOCK HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY INTEREST RELATIVE TO COMMENCING A PATERNITY ACTION AND REQUESTING CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME REGARDLESS OF A BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION TO THE CHILD AND THE PRESENCE OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
Beckwith & Beckwith v. Quinn, (Unpublished, #292354), 11/17/09
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DIVISION OF ASSETS IN A DIVORCE ACTION INCLUDES A DUTY TO REACH AN EQUITABLE DIVISION IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES—INCLUDING THE TERMS OF A VALID PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT
Garner v. Garner, (Unpublished, #292354), 11/17/09
IN ORDER TO PURSUE A CLAIM AGAINST MARITAL REALTY ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED TO A THIRD PARTY BY THE HUSBAND, THE THIRD PARTY NEEDED TO APPEAL THE DECISION DENYING HIM PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN THE DIVORCE ACTION OR PURSUE A SEPARATE ACTION AGAINST THE HUSBAND FOR BREACH OF THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT RESULTING FROM THE HUSBAND’S FAILURE TO TENDER A VALID DEED. A QUIET TITLE ACTION AGAINST THE MARRIED COUPLE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.
Lockhart v. Lockhart, (Unpublished, #289654), 11/5/09
A FATHER WHOSE PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE SOUGHT TO BE TERMINATED UNDER MCL 710.51 OF THE ADOPTION CODE DOES NOT HAVE A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING AT WHICH TERMINATION IS CONSIDERED GIVEN THAT HE WAS REPRESENTED AT THAT HEARING AND HAD THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS VIA TELEPHONETop of Page
Scott v. Baldwin, (Unpublished, #291392), 10/22/09
WHEN A TRIAL COURT RECEIVES A RELEASE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE ADOPTION CODE, THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED THE RELEASE
In the matter of Jafar Shakur Gresham, Lafrance Naquay Gresham, and Autumn Christine Gresham, Minors, (Unpublished, #290697), 10/20/09
A TRIAL COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AFTER THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS EXIST IF THE TRIAL COURT READ ALL THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT INTO THE RECORD AND INDICATED THE JUDGMENT’S IMMEDIATE EFFECT, OR IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PARTIES RELIED ON THE TERMS OF THE DIVORCE.
Joyce Gentile v. John Graybill, Second Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of SAMUEL GENTILE, Deceased, (Unpublished, #284639), 10/15/09
A TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR BY REJECTING A PARTIES’ MEDIATED CUSTODY AGREEMENT. REGARDLESS OF A MEDIATED AGREEMENT, THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT REQUIRES A TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN.Top of Page
Christine Roguska v. Randy Roguska, (Unpublished, #291352), 9/29/09
FATHERS MARRYING THEIR CHILD’S MOTHER EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE 2004 AMENDMENTS TO MCL 722.712 ARE ENTITLED TO ABATEMENT OF PREGNANCY AND BIRTH EXPENSES PAID FOR BY MEDICAID
Booker v. Shannon, ___Mich App___ (2009), #284937, 9/17/09
IN INTERSTATE DISPUTES OVER JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CUSTODY, THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE ACT (APA) AND UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) CAN BE READ TOGETHER TO ALLOW MICHIGAN TO HAVE CONTINUING JURISDICTION TO MODIFY THE INITIAL CUSTODY DETERMINATION MADE BY OPERATION OF LAW PURSUANT TO THE APA WHEN THE CHILD AND A PARENT STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONNECTIONS TO MICHIGAN
Foster v. Wolkowitz, (Unpublished, #291825), 9/15/09
LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS PAID IN CONTRAVENTION TO A DIVORCE JUDGMENT PROVISION THAT EXTINGUISHED AN EX-SPOUSE’S BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION IN THE OTHER (NOW DECEASED) SPOUSE’S ERISA LIFE INSURANCE POLICY MAY BE RE-DIRECTED TO THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE ON A THEORY OF BREACH OF CONTRACT AS CONTAINED IN THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT
Brown v. Wright, (Unpublished, #285509), 9/15/09
(1) IF A COURT EMPLOYS ITS CONTEMPT POWER TO COERCE COMPLIANCE WITH A PRESENT OR FUTURE OBLIGATION OR TO REIMBURSE THE COMPLAINANT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE CONTEMPTUOUS BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CIVIL AND THE ALLEGED CONTEMNOR NEED ONLY BE AFFORDED RUDIMENTARY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (I.E. NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE WITH THE PARTY SEEKING THE ENFORCEMENT HAVING THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE VIOLATION BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE). (2) THE FAILURE OF A COMPLAINANT IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING TO ATTACH A SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT TO HIS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS REQUIRED BY MCR 3.606 DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS SO LONG AS THE ALLEGED CONTEMNOR IS AFFORDED NOTICE GIVING SUFFICIENT FACTS ON WHICH THE COURT MAY BASE A FINDING OF CONTEMPT
Henkel v. Porter, ___Mich App___ (2009), #284086, 9/1/09
A TRIAL COURT’S TEMPORARY ORDER IS A PRIOR DETERMINATION REGARDING LEGITIMACY OF THE MINOR CHILD, WHICH SETTLES THE CONTROVERSY FOR THE PATERNITY ACT AND ALLOWS A FATHER OF A CHILD BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK STANDING TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGSTop of Page
David Hickox v. Megan Vanerark, (Unpublished, #289715), 8/13/09
(1) THE ADOPTION CODE DOES NOT ALLOW A GUARDIAN TO SIMPLY AGREE TO TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. UNTIL TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TAKES PLACE, CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE CHILD IS NOT FREE TO BE ADOPTED. (2) AN ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION AS A PUBLISHED MATTER, THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE IS FIRST A PREREQUISITE FOR ADOPTION WHICH IS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. THE ADOPTION CODE DOES NOT ALLOW A GUARDIAN TO AGREE TO TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. (3) A CHILD SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN A HOME FOR PURPOSES OF ADOPTION UNTIL AN ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS HAS BEEN ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE MICHIGAN ADOPTION CODE OR THE MICHIGAN JUVENILE CODE AND THE COURT HAS FORMALLY APPROVED PLACEMENT UNDER MCL 710.51
In re: Brandon Gavin Handorf, Minor, ___Mich App___ (2009), #290101, 8/18/09
(1) THE PARENTAL PRESUMPTION UNDER THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT FOUND AT MCL 722.25(1) IS SUPERIOR TO THE ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT PRESUMPTION UNDER THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT FOUND AT MCL 722.27(1)(C). THE PARENTAL PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED ONLY BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE CUSTODY WITH THE NATURAL PARENT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. THEREFORE, MCL 22.25(1) SATISFIES THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY UNDER TROXEL V GRANVILLE, 530 US 57 (2000). (2) DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION OF PARENTAL FITNESS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES INVOLVING THIRD PARTIES. THEREFORE, THE DECISION IN MASON V SIMMONS, 267 MICH APP 188 (2005) IS OVERRULED. (3) THIRD PARTIES DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY BASIS TO HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CHILD CUSTODY SOLELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD. (4) THE MICHIGAN CHILD CUSTODY ACT ADEQUATELY PROTECTS A FIT PARENT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AS OUTLINED IN TROXEL V GRANVILLE,SUPRA
Robert Hunter and Lorie Hunter v. Tammy Jo Hunter and Jeffrey Hunter, ___Mich___ (2009), #136310, 7/31/09
WHEN BOTH PARENTS ARE EXERCISING MUTUAL RIGHTS OF CUSTODY OF A CHILD IN THAT CHILD’S ‘HABITUAL RESIDENCE’ COUNTRY, THE HAGUE CONVENTION DOES NOT PERMIT ONE OF THE PARENTS TO PREVAIL ON A REQUEST FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD TO ANOTHER COUNTRY WHERE THE CHILD HAD PREVIOUSLY LIVED WHICH IS NOT THE CHILD’S ‘HABITUAL RESIDENCE’Top of Page
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, #08-3534/3663, 7/1/09
ALTHOUGH ONE PARTY TO A DIVORCE MAY BE THE “PRIMARY CAREGIVER”, THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH THE OTHER PARTY
Anna Maria Salstka-Becovson v. David C. Belcovson, (Unpublished, #289686), 6/16/09
STIPULATED AGREEMENTS REGARDING CUSTODY DO NOT RELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT OF ITS AFFIRMATIVE DUTY UNDER THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT. THE TRIAL COURT MUST INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN
James Dee Shin v. Kellie Marie Shin, (Unpublished, #288458), 6/11/09
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT NOTICE WHEN FATHER ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PATERNITY, DENIED ANY INTEREST IN CUSTODY OF THE CHILD AND GAVE UP HIS RIGHT TO NOTICE BY EXECUTING FORM PCA 316 ON DIRECT PLACEMENT ADOPTION
In the matter of KCS, Minor, (Unpublished, #288824), 6/2/09
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF FATHER TO ASSERT PATIENT-PHYSCIAN PRIVILEGE AND THEN ALLOW FATHER TO TESTIFY AT-LENGTH REGARDING HIS MENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH, IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT MOTHER WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCETop of Page
Carlos Lopez-Negrete v. Kariani Lopez-Negrete, (Unpublished, #2286247), 5/26/09
THE RESPONDENT TO A PPO WAS FOUND TO BE IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR SENDING COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PETITIONER’S BROTHER AND NEIGHBOR BECAUSE THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS THE RESPONDENT’S INTENT THAT THAT COMMUNICATION REACH THE PETITIONER. SINCE SENDING COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTLY TO PETITIONER WERE PROHIBITED BY THE PPO, THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT DO THROUGH OTHERS WHAT HE COULD NOT DO HIMSELF
Plantz v. Ralston, (Unpublished #285390), 5/19/09
A PARTY’S ASSERTION OF HER PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THAT PARTY FROM CROSS-EXAMINING OTHER WITNESSES ABOUT HER ACTIONS OR STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THOSE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
Najt v. Najt, (Unpublished, #281548), 5/14/09
IN REVIEWING AN ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, THE AUTHORITY OF A TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION IF THE ARBITRATOR ACTED BEYOND THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR IF S/HE FAILED TO APPLY CONTROLLING LAW. IT IS NOT FOR THE REVIEWING COURT TO RECONSIDER SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
Washington v. Washington, ___Mich App___ (2009), #281174, 5/12/09
AN ALLEGED BIOLOGICAL FATHER’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS LIBERTY INTEREST IS NOT VIOLATED BY PROVISIONS OF MICHIGAN LAW THAT DO NOT AFFORD HIM STANDING TO FILE A COMPLAINT FOR PATERNITY WHEN AN UNREVOKED AFFIDAVIT OF PARENTAGE EXISTS INVOLVING THE CHILD AND THE ALLEGED BIOLOGICAL FATHER LACKS A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD
Houseman v. Worden, (Unpublished, #284089), 5/5/09
IN RULING ON A CHANGE OF DOMICILE REQUEST FROM A PARENT WITH SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY OF A CHILD, THE TRIAL COURT IS OBLIGATED TO GRANT THE REQUEST BY CONCLUDING THAT MCL 722.31 DOES NOT APPLY AND THAT THE ANALYSIS OF THE D’ONOFRIO FACTORS NEED NOT BE CONSIDEREDTop of Page
Smead v. Smead, (Unpublished, #283066), 4/28/09
WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S HAD STANDING, IT WAS INCORRECT TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF A GUARDIANSHIP ORDER ENTERED BY THE PROBATE COURT IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING
Unthank v. Wolfe, ___Mich___(2009), #138172, 4/24/09
1. PURSUANT TO MCR 3.211(C), A PARENT WITH SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY MUST SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR A CHANGE OF DOMICILE OUT OF MICHIGAN, BUT THE FACTORS OF MCL 722.31(4) DO NOT APPLY. PROVISIONS OF A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE THAT CONFLICT WITH MICHIGAN COURT RULES ARE UNENFORCEABLE. 2. PROVISIONS OF A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE THAT CONFLICTS WITH COURT RULES OR STATUTES ARE VOIDABLE. 3. PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION BASED UPON THE LAW AND FACTS OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL CASE, NOT THE ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCES OF THE TRIAL COURT.
Candice Brausch v. Michael Brausch, ___Mich App___(2009), #282985, 4/14/09
A FOREIGN JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD BE ACCORDED COMITY IF: 1.) THE BASIC RUDIMENTS OF DUE PROCESS WERE FOLLOWED; 2.) THE PARTIES WERE PRESENT IN COURT; AND 3.) A HEARING ON THE MATTERS WAS HELD
Saida Tarikonda v. Bade Pinjari, (Unpublished, #287403), 4/7/09
WITHOUT REQUESTING AN ADJOURNMENT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION FOR A TRIAL COURT TO ADJOURN AN ADOPTION PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF A PATERNITY ACTION. DECISIONS TO PROCEED OR ADJOURN ARE WITHIN THE COURT’S DISCRETIONTop of Page
In the matter of Chase Luke Brookman, Minor, (Unpublished, #287131), 4/7/09
A JUDGMENT ENTERED BASED ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PARTIES IS NOT SUBJECT TO BEING SET ASIDE ABSENT MUTUAL MISTAKE, FRAUD, UNCONSCIONABLE ADVANTAGE OR IGNORANCE OF A MATERIAL TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
Miller v. Miller, (Unpublished, #282997), 3/24/09
(1) IN A CUSTODY DISPUTE BETWEEN A THIRD PARTY AND A NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT THE COURT MUST FIRST MAKE A FINDING ON PARENTAL FITNESS BEFORE DETERMINING THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION TO BE APPLIED UNDER HELTZEL OR MASON IN ORDER TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING. (2) EVEN THOUGH A THIRD PARTY WHO IS NOT A GUARDIAN OR WHO DOES NOT OTHERWISE HAVE STANDING UNDER MCL 722.26c(1)(b) MAY NOT INITIATE A CUSTODY ACTION OR INTERVENE IN A PATERNITY CASE INVOLVING A DECEASED CUSTODIAL PARENT AND THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT, THE COURT MAY STILL AWARD INTERIM CUSTODY TO THAT THIRD PARTY PENDING THE BEST INTEREST HEARING OR FULL CUSTODY TO THE THIRD PARTY UNDER MCL 722.27(1)(a) AFTER THAT HEARING IS CONCLUDED IF THAT AWARD IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST
In re Anjoski, ___Mich App___(2009), #283406, 3/19/09
CHANGE IN ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES, STANDING ALONE, ARE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVISITING A PREVIOUSLY ENTERED CHILD CUSTODY ORDER. FURTHERMORE, THOSE CONCERNS COULD MORE APPROPRIATELY BE ADDRESSED THROUGH AN INCREASE IN THE CHILD SUPPORT PAID TO THE CUSTODIAL PARENT FOLLOWING A PROPERLY FILED MOTION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT
Corporan v. Henton, ___Mich App___(2009), #285778, 3/5/09
UNLESS PARTIES AGREE THAT AN ALIMONY PROVISION IS FINAL, BINDING AND NON-MODIFIABLE, SUCH PROVISION MAY BE MODIFIED BASED ON A SHOWING OF NEW FACTS OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENTTop of Page
Goldberg v. Goldberg, (Unpublished, # 280286), 2/14/09
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO SISTER STATES’ ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS. EVEN THOUGH SAME SEX PARENTS COULD NOT ADOPT IN MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN CAN DETERMINE CUSTODY IN REGARDS TO SAME SEX PARENTS WHO ADOPTED A CHILD IN A SISTER STATE UNDER OUR LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Diane Giancaspro v. Lisa Congleton, (Unpublished, #283267), 2/19/09
THE TRIAL COURT’S “UNIQUE FAMILIARITY WITH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IS A VALUABLE PART IN” DEEMING WHETHER PROPER CAUSE OR CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE EXIST. HOWEVER, THE TRIAL COURT MUST MAKE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND ARTICULATE A REASON FOR ITS DETERMINATION
William Eagan v. Jannell Eagan, (Unpublished, #287982), 2/19/09IN A CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTE, PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS “ARE BUT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AMONGST MANY, AND ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES DISPOSITIVE IN DETERMINING CUSTODY.”
Steven McIntosh v. Kristin McIntosh, ___Mich App___(2009), #285528, 2/17/09
GRANDPARENTS DO NOT HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ADOPT THEIR GRANDCHILDREN
In re Kyle Kuntzman, Minor, (Unpublished, #286434), 2/10/09
A CONTRIBUTION CLAIM PREDICATED ON THE THEORY OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT FOR EXPENSES MADE RELATED TO AN ENTIRETIES PROPERTY WILL NOT STAND WHEN BROUGHT BY THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE AGAINST THE SURVIVING SPOUSE
Estate of Janet Elaine Mandeville v. Frank Mandeville, Jr., ___Mich App___(2009), #280879, 2/05/09
THE TRIAL COURT MUST NARROWLY FOCUS ITS CONSIDERATION OF EACH OF THE BEST INTEREST FACTOR TO THE SPECIFIC “IMPORTANT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD” (e.g. WHICH SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD A CHILD ATTEND)Top of Page
Timothy Pierron v. Kelly Pierron, ___Mich App___(2009), #282673, 2/03/09
WHEN PARENTS HOLDING JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY ARE UNABLE TO AGREE ON THE CHILD’S EDUCATIONAL PLAN, THE COURT WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION USING A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD AND CONSIDERING THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS IN MCL 722.23 WITH EXPLICIT FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF EACH FACTOR GIVING SPECIAL EMPHASIS TO THOSE FACTORS OF PARTICULAR RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE AT BAR
Parent v. Parent, ___Mich App___ (2009), #287543, 1/22/09
A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED BASED ON TERMS IN A SIGNED MEDIATION AGREEMENT IS VALID AND CANNOT BE SET ASIDE BASED ON ONE PARTY’S CHANGE OF HEART OR BECAUSE A PARTY ALLEGES SIMPLY THAT THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS INVALID
Schafer v. Schafer, (Unpublished, #287435), 1/20/09
THE FACT THAT A CHILD WISHES TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT DOES NOT ALONE RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR PROPER CAUSE JUSTIFYING A REVIEW OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE CHILD’S PARENTS
Frink v. Frink, (Unpublished, #287229), 1/13/09
SPOUSE ‘A’ HAS STANDING IN A DIVORCE ACTION TO CHALLENGE A THIRD PARTY’S CLAIM TO PROPERTY BASED ON THE THIRD PARTY & SPOUSE ‘B’s’ FRAUDULENT ACTIONS TAKEN DURING THE MARRIAGE TO DEFEAT SPOUSE ‘A’s’ CLAIM TO SUCH MARITAL PROPERTY
Kenny v. Kenny & Schaffer, (Unpublished, #278142), 1/13/09
TO FIND A DEFENDANT IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR VIOLATING A PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER THE COURT MUST ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND ALSO ADVISE HIM OF THE DANGERS AND DISADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATION. IN ADDITION, THE PETITIONER MUST PROVE THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BY A STANDARD OF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
People v. Davis, (Unpublished, #281103), 1/8/08
THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO TESTIFY OR DETERMINE THAT HE KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO TRIAL IN CONNECTION WITH A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING CONCERNING AN ALLEGED PPO VIOLATIONTop of Page
Laury v. Laury, (Unpublished, # 280747), 12/23/09
1. THIRD PARTIES, WHO HAD CUSTODY OF A MINOR WITH THE MOTHER’S PERMISSION – WHICH WAS LATER REVOKED – AND A PLANNED ADOPTION FELL THROUGH BECAUSE THE FATHER WOULD NOT CONSENT, DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY PURSUANT TO MCL 722.26c(1). 2. THE SAFEGUARDS IN THE GUARDIANSHIP STATUTE ARE MEANT TO PROTECT AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN TEMPORARY POSSESSION AS MEANS TO ACQUIRE STANDING IN A CHILD CUSTODY ACT
Phillip and Phyllis Unthank v. Christine Wolfe and Kenneth Barnett, ___Mich App___ (2008), #285202, 12/23/08
COMPLETE DISMISSAL OF A REQUEST FOR DE NOVO REVIEW IS NOT ACCEPTABLE WHEN ONE PARTY’S COUNSEL FAILS TO ATTEND A HEARING DUE TO A SIMPLE CLERICAL ERROR
Miranda Peterson, f/k/a Miranda Orban v. Allen Orban, (Unpublished, #286081), 12/90/8
THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES SET A PARENT’S MINIMUM SUPPORT OBLIGATION, HOWEVER, A PARENT MAY VOLUNTARILY ASSUME AN OBLIGATION HIGHER THAN THAT SET FORTH BY THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES. A CONTRACT ENHANCING A PARENT’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD BE ENFORCED, ABSENT A COMPELLING REASON TO FORBEAR
Elizabeth S. Holmes v. Richard E. Holmes. Jr., ___Mich App___ (2008), #276470, 12/4/08
MCL 552.605b(1) ALLOWS AN INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT AS LONG AS THEY ARE ATTENDING HIGH SCHOOL ON A FULL-TIME BASIS WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF GRADUATION, AND THEY ARE RESIDING FULL-TIME WITH THE PARENT RECEIVING SUPPORT. 19 YEARS AND SIX MONTHS IS THE AGE LIMIT IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE MAY RECEIVE CHILD SUPPORT
Julie Cross v. Kenneth Cross, (Unpublished, #279286), 11/25/08
Top of Page2009
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-25-10
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