PLAN A MOVE, COURT SAYS YOU CANNOT TAKE YOUR CHILD!

Issues that we talk about today are: Custody; Motion to modify or remove a condition of the custody order regarding the plaintiff-mother's domicile; MCL 722.31; The applicability of the 2003 order

__________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 5/3/08 early edition
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 ___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=28132#28132 __________________________
WFLT 1420 AM 9 AM 5/3/08- PROGRAM “ KNOW THE LAW” CALL IN! On Saturday 5/3/08 from 9:am until 9:30 am We will talk about MOVING YOUR KIDS on my radio program “ Know the Law” WFLT 1420 am radio. This is a call in program and you may ask question on the air by calling 810-239-5733.
__________________________

HERE ARE THE FACTS HOW WILL YOU CALL IT?
__________________________

EVERBODY LIVED IN LANSING The parties lived in the Lansing area at the time of the original custody order.
JOINT PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY They shared joint legal and physical custody of their minor child.
MOM WANTS TO MOVE TO FARMINGTON ADDRESS A dispute arose in 2003 when plaintiff sought to move the child's residence to Farmington Hills.
THE TRIAL COURT LET MOM GO AND GAVE CUSTODY TO DAD, UNLESS MOM MOVED BACK The trial court entered an order providing the defendant-father would receive primary physical custody during the school year, but if plaintiff moved back to the Lansing area, the pre-existing shared physical custody arrangement would resume.
MOM MOVED BACK TO LANSING, BACK TO JOINT CUSTODY Plaintiff moved to East Lansing and the shared physical custody arrangement resumed.
NOW SHE WANT TO MOVE AGAIN In 2006, plaintiff filed a motion seeking permission to change the child's residence to Howell, where she and her new husband were buying a home. WHAT WOULD YOU DO SHOULD MOM BE ALLOWED TO MOVE AND KEEP JOINT CUSTODY? The trial court summarily denied the motion, stating the prior order controlled.

THE TRIAL COURT SAID NO AND SAID IN A TOUCHY FEELY KIND OF WAY THE MOVE TO HOWELL WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE ORDER., ITS CLOSE ENOUGH. Plaintiff's proposed move to Howell clearly did not violate the 100-mile restriction of MCL 722.31. If the 2003 order remained applicable, it only restricted plaintiff from moving the child's residence outside the "Lansing area" and from commuting from Farmington Hills with the child during the school week. Howell is not Farmington Hills, and is significantly closer to Lansing.

CONCLUSION, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THE TRIAL COURT GOT IT WRONG In this case the court reversed the trial court's order denying the plaintiff-mother's motion to modify or remove a condition of the custody order concerning her domicile, concluding the relevant question was the applicability of the 2003 order and the trial court failed to adequately address this issue.

IS THE PRIOR ORDER IN EFFECT AND IF YES IS THE MOVE IN THE LANSING AREA The court concluded the trial court should have resolved whether the 2003 order was still applicable and if so, whether Howell is within "the Lansing area" for purposes of the order. Reversed and remanded. —

LINDSEY N. PECIC,Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED State of Michigan Court of Appeals. April 22, 2008 v No. 274278 Ingham Circuit Court HAROLD JAMES WHITE, LC No. 98-003187-DP Defendant-Appellee. Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Sawyer and Cavanagh, JJ. e-Journal Number: 39136

MEMORANDUM.
MOMS MOVE At the time of the original custody order, the parties resided in the Lansing area. The parties shared joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. A dispute arose in 2003 when plaintiff sought to move the child’s residence to Farmington Hills.

That dispute resulted in the trial court entering an order that provided that defendant would receive primary physical custody during the school year, but further provided that if plaintiff “moved back to the Lansing area” then the pre-existing shared physical custody arrangement would resume. The 2003 order further provided that plaintiff was not to commute from Farmington Hills with the child during the school week.

Plaintiff moved her residence to East Lansing and the shared physical custody arrangement resumed. In 2006, plaintiff filed a motion in the circuit court seeking permission to change the child’s resident to Howell, where plaintiff and her husband were purchasing a home.

The trial court summarily denied the motion, stating the prior order controlled. It is from this denial that plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff’s primary argument revolves around the applicability of MCL 722.31, which restricts moving a child’s legal residence more than 100 miles away. Clearly, plaintiff’s proposed move to Howell does not violate the restrictions of that statute.

Rather, the relevant question is the applicability of the 2003 order in this case. In this respect, we conclude that the trial court failed to adequately address this issue. If the 2003 order remains applicable, then it only restricts plaintiff from moving the child’s residence outside “the Lansing area” and from commuting from Farmington Hills with the child during the school week. Clearly, Howell is not Farmington Hills and, in fact, is significantly closer to Lansing than is Farmington Hills. And, obviously, plaintiff would not be violating the prohibition on commuting from Farmington Hills.

Therefore, the trial court should have resolved whether the 2003 order is still applicable to this case and, if so, whether Howell is within “the Lansing area” for purposes of the 2003 order. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying plaintiff’s motion and remand this matter to the trial court to resolve those issues.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. Plaintiff may tax costs. /s/ Pat M. Donofrio /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

This case has been modified for the purpose of a blog and radio presentation.

Posted here by Terry Bankert ... Family Mediation and Divorce Practice. http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html
Join me in creating a new voice in The Michigan Democratic Party, become a Precinct Delegate. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Aff-ID_Precnt_139901_7.pdf
52556/ 13473

Sphere: Related Content