Child Custody when both parents are openly gay?

Custody could be sole physical and legal to one parent or both.

This Genesee County case works through the law of custody and some unique and other procedural issues. [trb]

THIS IS THE TOPIC OF MY RADIO SHOW 9 AM to 9:30 AM EASTERN ON SATURDAY 7/26/08 WFLT 1420 AM RADIO ITS A CALL IN SHOW 1-810-239-5733. You are invited to call in.[trb]

[trb]QUESTION;
If the parents are never married but work out a liberal and shared parenting time/custody arrangement without going to court and they both involve their extended families,What should the cuistody order be? Full custody to mother, to father, or joint?

[trb]QUESTION: Now add this fact, the father is gay. What should the custody order be?

[trb]QUESTION;Now add these facts, Mother had moved out of state to Indiana , back to Michigan and said she was moving back to indiana. The Child is 3 years of age. What should the physical custody be?

[trb]QUESTION: Now add this fact the mother is gay. Now what should the custody order be and why?

Issues:

Child custody dispute;

Whether the plaintiff-father was entitled to a de novo hearing on his objections to the referee's recommendations; MCL 722.21; Harvey v. Harvey; MCR 3.215(E)(4), (F)(2), (F)(2)(a) and (c); MCL 522.507; Dumm v. Brodbeck; MCL 522.507(4);

Whether the referee and the trial court abused their discretion in granting the parties joint custody of the child where they were unable to agree on educational issues; Rivette. v. Rose-Molina; MCL 722.26a; Shulick v. Richards; Nielsen v. Nielsen;

Whether the trial court considered the factors in MCL 722.31(4);

Whether the trial court should have indicated the child's "legal residence" in its order; MCL 722.31(5); Report and recommendation (R&R)

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ,

ROBERT WAYNE BARNETT,Plaintiff-Appellant,Attorney Mitchell Dembo ,UNPUBLISHED July 17, 2008 ,v No. 283322Genesee Circuit Court Family Division ,AMY LYNN CLEMMER, LC No. 06-268806-DP, Judge Theile ,Defendant-Appellee. Attorney Charles Riley ,Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Talbot and Donofrio, JJ.PER CURIAM.e-Journal Number: 40003 ,


*****disclaimer*****
[posted by Terry Bankert at
http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/2008/07/child-custody-issue.html
http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/2008/07/child-custody-issue.html

The contents of this opinion have been modified for media presentation.

Review the origional document and consult an attorney before you rely on it.

The unattributed CAP head lines or that attributed [trb] are added by Terry Bankert 07/24/08]
********************

SUMMARY OF OPINION

FATHER HAS OBJECTED TO REFEREE RECOMMENDATION HE DID NOT LIKE

Concluding the trial court's hearing in this child custody dispute on the parties' objections to the referee's R&R ...[REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION...TRB]...satisfied the requirement of a de novo hearing where the trial court reviewed the record of the referee hearing and relied on the referee's recommendations, the court held the plaintiff-father was not entitled to a separate de novo hearing.

MOTHER AND FATHER UNMARRIED ARE IN LONG TERM GAY RELATIONSHIPS

The parties are both involved with their partners in long-term same-sex relationships. Defendant and her partner approached plaintiff in 2003 about becoming the father of her child, and plaintiff eventually agreed after discussing the issue with his partner.

THE PARENTS SHARED EQUAL PARENTING TIME INFORMALLY

Since the child's birth, the parties have shared approximately equal parenting time.

DAD FILES FOR CUSTODY FEARFUL MOTHER MAY LEAVE THE STATE

The plaintiff filed a custody complaint in June 2006, alleging the defendant-mother threatened to leave the state with the child and had eight dogs living in her home. The trial court entered an ex parte order prohibiting the parties from removing the child from the county.

THE REFERE RECOMMENDED JOINT LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY, THE LOCAL COURT AGREED

After a hearing, the referee issued a R&R, and after another hearing the trial court adopted the referee's R&R and issued an order granting the parties joint legal and physical custody of the child.

DAD APPEALS THIS JOINT CUSTODY DECISION

Plaintiff argued on appeal he was entitled to a de novo hearing after filing objections to the referee's R&R. The court concluded the trial court's hearing on the parties' objections satisfied the requirement of a de novo hearing. Under MCL 552.507(4) and MCR 3.215(E)(4), plaintiff was entitled to a de novo hearing before the trial court. However, the trial court was permitted to base its decision entirely on the record of the referee hearing as long as it gave the parties the opportunity to present live evidence.

DAD CLAIMS CERTAIN RECORDS WERE NOT ALLOWED IN

At the hearing on the parties' objections to the referee's R&R, plaintiff's only objection concerning defendant's former employer was the referee had failed to address her employment records admitted at the referee hearing, plaintiff did not ask to call the employer as a witness, or repeat other allegations he had raised at the hearing. He also "neither asked to present live evidence to the trial court nor presented documentation or affidavits to support his allegations."

LOCAL TRIAL COURT AFTER HEARING AGREED WITH REFEREE

Thus as in Dumm, the trial court properly reviewed the referee's record and relied on her recommendations in issuing its order. Affirmed.

THIS MEANS THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE–On 06/22/06 Case filed and 01/16/08 Final order of judgement filed [trb]

[this article posted at http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/2008/07/child-custody-issue.html]

http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/2008/07/child-custody-issue.html

Sphere: Related Content