Return to Calhoun County Courts Home PageA review and summary of recently decided domestic relations cases which have significant impact on the law. The reviews are provided by Berrien County Probate Judge Thomas E. Nelson and Cass County Probate Judge Susan L. Dobrich. The month under which the cases appear are when they are recieved from the authors.
A TRIAL COURT’S AWARD OF SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO ONE PARENT (WHO IT FOUND TO HAVE AN ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT WITH THE CHILD) WHILE PROVIDING THE OTHER PARENT 7 OF 14 OVERNIGHTS OF PARENTING TIME IS INCONSISTENT AND EFFECTIVELY CHANGED THE CHILD’S ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT A REQUIRED FINDING THAT SUCH A CHANGE WAS CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS
Kolb v. Garn, (Unpublished, #287534), 1/21/10
WHILE IT APPEARED THAT MICHIGAN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE INITIAL CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION UNDER THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT HAD JURISDICTION TO MODIFY THAT DETERMINATION GIVEN THAT NO OTHER STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CHILD OR THE OTHER STATES THAT MAY HAVE HAD JURISDICTION HAD DECLINED TO EXERCISE IT
Dekinderen v. Dekinderen, (Unpublished, #293443), 1/12/09
WHEN THE TRIAL COURT IS CONFRONTED WITH BOTH A PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE A PUTATIVE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AND AN ACTION FOR CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME FILED BY THAT FATHER, THE PREFERRED APPROACH IS TO ADDRESS THE TERMINATION ACTION PRIOR TO CONSIDERING THE FATHER’S CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME REQUEST. HOWEVER, WHEN, AS HERE, GOOD CAUSE IS SHOWN, THE ORDER OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE REVERSED
Juncaj v. Helmlinger, (Unpublished, #291839), 1/5/10
BECAUSE SUCH PAYMENTS ARE SPECULATIVE, BONUS PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EARNED DURING THE MARRIAGE OR WHICH ARE RECEIVED DURING THE MARRIAGE BUT SUBJECT TO FUTURE DIVESTMENT ARE NOT MARITAL OR SEPARATE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO DIVISION IN A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE
Skelly v. Skelly, ___Mich App___ (2009), #287127, 12/29/09
IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AS A SANCTION THE COURT MUST STILL ALLOW THE PARTY OPPOSING THAT SANCTION AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ATTORNEY FEES BEING AWARDEDTop of Page
Nowicki v. Solecki-Nowicki, (Unpublished, #288775), 12/22/09
(1) ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS MUST GENERALLY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER ACTIONS, INCLUDING PATERNITY, BUT SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY BE STAYED UPON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. (2) DETERMINATION OF PATERNITY MAY BE GOOD CAUSE TO STAY ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS.
In the matter of M.K.K., Minor, ___Mich App___ (2009), #292065, 12/22/09
(1) AN UNDERLYING CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION AND A PLAINTIFF MOTHER’S RIGHT TO SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ARE NOT EXTINGUISHED WHEN THE FRIEND OF THE COURT CLOSES A DEFENDANT FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT CASE AS PART OF AN AMNESTY OFFER. (2) A DEFENDANT FATHER HAS A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO PAY ARREARAGES OF CHILD SUPPORT.Top of Page
Katherine Gleason v. Gregory Gleason, (Unpublished, #286639), 12/15/09
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