DAD GETS CUSTODY

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
10/3/09
BY
Terry Bankert
　
DAD GETS PHYSICAL CUSTODY. and LEGAL CUSTODY!!!!

MOM HAD UNHEALTHY FOCUS ON HER CHILDREN

FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT REVIEWS SEVERAL Issues:
Custody; "Best interest" factors MCL 722.23(b), (d), (g), and (j);
Review of the trial court's factual findings; McCain v. McCain; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Rittershaus v. Rittershaus; Bowers v. Bowers
　
FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER TERRY BANKERT REVIEWS A RECENT DECISION OF THE COURT:

Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished), Case Name: Bruns v. Bruns
UNPUBLISHED,September 24, 2009 ,v No. 289312 ,Kent Circuit Court
DENISE MARIE BRUNS, LC No. 00-002680-DM, e-Journal Number: 43859
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Servitto, Fitzgerald, and Bandstra . Additions , opinions and deletions made for presentation here. Consult with an attorney before your rely on its content-trb
　
Concluding the trial court's findings "best interest" factors (b), (d), (g), and (j) favored the plaintiff-father were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the trial court's order awarding him legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child.
　
In this case mother challenges the ruling of the lower local county court. How does
The Court of Appeals second guess a local court?

The Michigan Court of Appeals reviews the local trial court’s factual findings under what is called the the great weight of the evidence standard. McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 125; 580 NW2d 485 (1998); Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 877; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).

In this case the Michigan Court of Appeals found that none of the challenged
findings by mother were against the great weight of the evidence.

FACTOR B - MCL 722.23(b), “[t]he capacity and disposition of the parties
involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any,”

As to best interest factor (b), the local trial court found while both parties had the capacity to provide the child affection and love, the defendant-mother "'can react to opposition from her children with anger and retaliation to the point of alienating the children from her for an extended period,'" and her emotional ties with the minor child might cause her to view the child "'as a peer, to the point of an emotionally unhealthy enmeshment.'"


The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded the record showed defendant was "verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive to the point of alienating her older children," and she had "an unhealthy focus on her children."


The record , transcripts of the local trial courts proceedings ,further reveals that mother may have difficulty forming friendships, that she has an unhealthy focus on her children, and that she shared “adult problems” with the children.


The Michigan Court of Appeals held the facts did not clearly preponderate in the opposite direction of the local trial court's finding.


FACTOR D - MCL 722.23(d), “[t]he length of time the child has lived in a
stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity,”

The situation involved mother’s undermining of father’s authority with the child.
Defendant mother did not provide any discernible facts to outweigh the trial court's conclusion factor (d) also favored plaintiff father , and the court noted there were several examples of her interfering with father plaintiff's parenting time.

FACTOR G- MCL 722.23 (g) “[t]he mental and physical health of the parties involved,”

As to factor (g), the court concluded defendant relied too much on her psychologist's brief testimony, and noted her psychologist did not prepare a psychological evaluation or dispute any of the findings, conclusions, or recommendations in the psychological evaluation admitted at the evidentiary hearing. A local trial court need not comment on every matter in evidence or declare acceptance or rejection of every proposition argued. Bowers v Bowers, 198 Mich App 320, 328; 497 NW2d 602 (1993).

FACTOR J - MCL 722.23(j), “[t]he willingness and ability of each of the
parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents,”

Regarding factor (j), the court concluded the record contained many examples of defendant's "mental, verbal, and physical abuse; her failure to comply with court orders; and her efforts to undermine father's authority with the children."

[Mother] has consistently demonstrated a high level of hostility toward
[father] to the extent that her inappropriate expression of that hostility in front of
[the child] was a source of concern for school personnel. She has been
substantiated for denying [father] parenting time. [Father] has provided [mother]
with the parenting time ordered by the Court, and has been willing to expand the
amount of time for [mother] to be with [the child] without the necessity of court
involvement.
　
While she provided "a litany of father's transgressions during the history of this case," these facts did not outweigh the trial court's findings as to factor (j). The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to award plaintiff legal and physical custody.

The Michigan Court of Appeals Affirmed the decision of the local trial court.

Dad gets Custody!

Posted here by
Terry Bankert
10/03/09
http://www.flintfamilylaw.com/
---

Sphere: Related Content