Thursday, December 30, 2010
Bay Mills Tribe possible Casino site
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/12/land_records_show_bay_mills_in.html
CASINO HEADED TO FLINT TOWNSHIP
A big development could be headed for the shadow of the Genesee Valley shopping center and some are speculating it could be a casino.[2]
BAY MILLS TRIBE OPENING CASINOS WHEREVER THEY WANT
Speculation about a casino here could be fueled by recent reports regarding the Upper Peninsula’s Bay Mills Indian Community, which recently opened a casino in Vanderbilt near Gaylord despite questions about the legality of the move.[2]
CASINO SLIPPED IN WITHOUT GOVERNMENT APPROVAL
The Port Huron Times Herald reported the casino opened without the usually required state and federal approvals, and experts told the paper that the tribe could be using Vanderbilt as a test before opening a casino in Port Huron, where it recently purchased land, and elsewhere.[2]
BAY MILLS NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT
The Flint Journal could not reach a representative of the Bay Mills Indian Community for comment Friday.[2]
TRIBE NOW OWN PRIME LAND NEAR GENESEE VALLEY
The Bay Mills Indian Community now owns 28 acres near the Genesee Valley shopping center, putting it in a position to open a casino here if it can fend off legal challenges.
A warranty deed filed with the Genesee County Register of Deeds Office Dec. 17 shows the vacant land has been purchased by the Bay Mills tribe from Joann M. Kemp of Macomb County but neither that paperwork nor a quit claim deed filed earlier reveal a purchase price. [1]
BUZZ
Buzz has been building since the October sale of a 28-acre parcel of real estate in the area of Dutcher and Lennon roads, long promoted as some of the county's best undeveloped commercial land.[2]
DID PRESTON GET IN TROUBLE FOR LEAKING THE CASINO INFORMATION?
Jerry Preston, president of the Flint Area Convention & Visitors Bureau, said he has heard the casino speculation.[2]
“We understand there's been a land purchase by what could be an Indian tribe,” Preston said Friday.[2]
DETROIT AREA REAL ESTATE BROKER
The same Detroit-area broker who helped put the sale together still has options to purchase additional, adjacent parcels that could double the size of a potential development, according to the real estate company that's representing the sellers.[2]
LAND SOLD LINKED TO FLINT TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE
The Flint Journal earlier covered the purchase of Kempts property by Norel Enterprises Inc., a corporation with owners that include township trustee George Menoutes. [1]
WHAT DID THEY KN OW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT.
At that time, Bay Mills involvement in the land deal was the subject of rumor and speculation. Now that the tribe has taken ownership, the only question is what Bay Mills has in mind for the prime commercial property, located near the northeast corner of Lennon and Dutcher roads. [1]
KEMP NOT TALKING
The Journal has been unable to reach Kemp or a Bay Mills representative for comment on the tribe's interest in the area, and township Supervisor Karyn Miller said she isn't sure whether she would support development of a casino here or fight against it.
Long-time resident Bonnie Johnson, who lives on Tandy Drive, just east of the Bay Mills property, said she's not excited about the prospect of a gambling operation in her back yard. [1]
THE PUBLIC RECORD
The 28 acres in the Lennon and Dutcher roads area were sold to Joanne Kemp of Harrison Twp in Macomb County, according to a deed on file at the Genesee County Register of Deeds Office. The Flint Journal could not reach Kemp for comment Friday and others involved in the sale say they aren't sure what her intentions may be.[2]
JUST WHAT IS THE PROPERTY WORTH
The deed did not list the price of the sale, but township records say the property has an assessed value of more than $525,000.[2]
A CASINO IS NOTHING BUT TROUBLE
"It would be nothing but trouble. We would be against it," said Johnson, who has lived here about 40 years. "People go there with a lot of money and come out with none."
Bay Mills is locked in a high-stakes game of chicken with state and federal officials as well as other tribes since it opened a small casino in Vanderbilt, a small village in northern Michigan, that state officials say violates state and federal law. [1]
A letter sent to the tribe from the state attorney general's office says Bay Mills considers that Vanderbilt property tribal land because its purchase was connected to the Michigan Indian Land Claims Settlement Act. [1]
The attorney general's office says the casino there is not on "Indian lands," as required for a legal gambling operation. The letter says Bay Mills has argued the casino can operate without review or approval from the state or federal officials in part because the tribe already has an approved compact with the state. Bay Mills also operates two casinos in the Upper Peninsula, where it is based. [1]
Bay Mills opened the Vanderbilt casino in November, and the state and the Little Traverse Bands of Odawa Indians filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court last week, asking a federal judge to shut down the casino. [1][
Like the newly purchased land in Flint Township and land it purchased recently in Port Huron, Bay Mills bought the Vanderbilt land within the last six months, fueling speculation that it is planning casinos in those two areas as well. [1]
James Nye, a spokesman for six Indian tribes that claim the Vanderbilt casino is illegal, said the small gambling operation near Gaylord is "a test case to open additional areas" like Flint Township to a Bay Mills casino. [1]
"If it's legal in Vanderbilt, it's legal in Flint or Port Huron," Nye said. "Then Bay Mills is the only government entity that gets to decide when and where they open a casino.
"It's completely at Bay Mills discretion." [1]
Winfield Cooper, president of Cooper Commercial in Flint Township, said the broker …Vigliotti … representing Kemp never volunteered what the ultimate plans are for the land.[2]
Cooper said he's never talked to Kemp, who only emerged as the buyer days before the sale closed. He said he knows there will be interest in what's happening here — options pending on multiple parcels of land in an otherwise slow real estate market.
But Cooper said the buyer's representative “did not talk to us about what the use would be.”[2]
“We're just excited to see interest in development in Flint Township,” he said.[2]
Genesee County Commissioner Ted Henry, D-Clayton Twp., said he would support the construction of a casino to provide an economic boost the area -- provided the operation is legal and is supported by the township. [1]
Miller said she's not sure if she would use her position to fight or support a casino.
"I don't have any comment ... whether I'm for it," Miller said. "When they feel it is the right time, I'm sure they will talk to (me). At this point, I don't know." [1]
Miller said she and other township officials have discussed forming a special committee, including members of the township planning commission, to discuss the land purchase with Bay Mills officials. [1]
Menoutes said there are more questions than answers about the property but spoke in positive terms about development of a casino here. [1]
"It's too bad that it's not going to (downtown Flint)," Menoutes said. "That would have helped the city." [1]
Menoutes said he sees the positive impact of the Indian casino in Mount Pleasant when he visits there. [1]
"All I see is people walking up and down the street," Menoutes said. [1]
Police, fire and the township's tax base could all benefit if a casino becomes reality, Menoutes said. [1]
Johnson, 75, said she won't leave her home no matter what happens with the vacant land Bay Mills now owns. [1]
"We're here for the rest of our lives," she said. [1]
George Menoutes, a township trustee and partner in Norel Enterprises Inc. — the corporation that sold the property to Kemp — identified the deal broker as Ralph Vigliotti Real Estate but would not comment on what the land may be used for.[2]
[1]
[2]http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/12/sss.html
\ Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Classic rope.
WE NEED OPEN DEBATE ABOUT THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIHUANA
Failure to engage in the debate hinders our hunt for a statute’s intended purpose and generally stifles the formation of sound legal principles. If we all gently withdrew our voices from the arena of competing ideas, then mistakes would go unchallenged, and the process of correction could suffer nearly insurmountable setbacks.[8]
On November 4, 2008, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL
333.26421 et seq., was passed by referendum and went into effect soon thereafter. It is without question that this act has no effect on federal prohibitions of the possession or consumption of marijuana.1[8]
DO YOUR ELECTED OFFICALS HAVE THE COURAGE TO OPENLY DEBATE LEGALIZATION OF POT?
I have no doubt that in the minds of some voters in this state, legalizing marijuana would be good public policy. Others who approved this act were under the impression that the act’s specific purpose was limited to permitting the use of medical marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions. Still others voted against this change in the law. Whether the decriminalization of medical marijuana is a good or bad idea for this state is a question of public policy for our state legislators, the executive branch, and the citizenry to ponder. It is not for the courts to set public policy.[8]
SHOULD CANNABIS BE LEGALIZED?
…U.S. data … statistics were derived in a setting that spends an estimated $10 billion each year enforcing marijuana laws. Research funded by the U.S. government also clearly demonstrates that, even as federal funding for anti-drug efforts increased by more than 600 per cent over the last several decades, marijuana's potency has nevertheless increased by 145 per cent since 1990, and its price has declined 58 per cent. For many of the above reasons, as well as the potential to generate a massive amount of tax revenue, a 2004 Fraser Institute report called for the outright legalization of cannabis, ….[5]
(T)he MMMA does not create any sort of affirmative right under state law to use or
possess marijuana. That drug remains a Schedule 1 substance under the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7212(1)(c), meaning that “the substance has a high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision,” MCL 333.7211. The MMMA does not repeal any drug laws contained in the Public Health Code, and all persons under this state’s jurisdiction remain subject to them. Accordingly, mere possession of marijuana remains a misdemeanor offense, MCL 333.7403(2)(d), and the manufacture of marijuana remains a felony, MCL 333.7401(2)(d).[8]
NOW A WORD FROM PAT ROBERTSON
"I'm not exactly for the use of drugs, don't get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it's just, it's costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."[6]
Michigan's two-year-old law allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes is leaving communities, courts, patients and police locked in disputes over what is legal and what isn't.[3]
"We're locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know, they've got 10 years with mandatory sentences. These judges just say, they throw up their hands and say 'nothing we can do with these mandatory sentences.' We've got to take a look at what we're considering crimes and that's one of 'em."[6]
Advocates of medical marijuana say nothing in the law prohibits dispensaries and collective growing facilities, and that communities are ignoring the will of Michigan voters by cracking down on those businesses. Advocates of the law say it's broad by design to protect a wide range of activities.[3]
Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Peter O'Connell wrote in a September opinion that the law is susceptible to multiple interpretations and that reading it "carelessly or out of context could result in jail or prison time for many of our citizens." He urged state officials to clear up contradictions and vague areas in the voter-approved law.[3]
The problem, however, is that the MMMA is inartfully drafted and, unfortunately, has
created much confusion regarding the circumstances under which an individual may use
marijuana without fear of prosecution. Some sections of the MMMA are in conflict with others,and many provisions in the MMMA are in conflict with other statutes, especially the Public Health Code. Further, individuals who do not have a serious medical condition are attempting to use the MMMA to flout the clear prohibitions of the Public Health Code and engage in recreational use of marijuana. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and trial court judges attempting to enforce both the MMMA and the Public Health Code are hampered by confusing and seemingly contradictory language, while healthy recreational marijuana users incorrectly view the MMMA as a de facto legalization of the drug, seemingly unconcerned that marijuana use remains illegal under both state and federal law.[8]
MARIJUANNA USE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW
The Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801 et seq., classifies marijuana as a
Schedule 1 substance, 21 USC 812(c), meaning that Congress recognizes no acceptable medical uses for it, and its possession is generally prohibited. See Gonzales v Raich, 545 US 1, 27; 125 S Ct 2195; 162 L Ed 2d 1 (2005); United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op, 532 US 483, 490; 121 S Ct 1711; 149 L Ed 2d 722 (2001). As a federal court in Michigan recently recognized, “It is indisputable that state medical-marijuana laws do not, and cannot, supercede federal laws that criminalize the possession of marijuana.” United States v Hicks, ___ F Supp 2d ___ (No. 07-20176, ED Mich, 2010); 2010 WL 2724286 at *3, citing Gonzales, 545 US at 29 (“The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.”); United States v $186,416.00 in US Currency, 590 F3d
942, 945 (CA 9, 2010) (“The federal government has not recognized a legitimate medical use for marijuana, however, and there is no exception for medical marijuana distribution or possession under the federal Controlled Substances Act”); United States v Scarmazzo, 554 F Supp 2d 1102, 1109 (ED Cal, 2008) (“Federal law prohibiting the sale of marijuana is valid, despite any state law suggesting medical necessity for marijuana”); United States v Landa, 281 F Supp 2d 1139, 1145 (ND Cal, 2003) (“our Congress has flatly outlawed marijuana in this country, nationwide, including for medicinal purposes.”). Accordingly, the MMMA has no effect on federal law, and the possession of marijuana remains illegal under federal law, even if it is possessed for medicinal purposes in accordance with state law. Hicks, 2010 WL 2724286 at *4, citing Gonzales, 545 US at 27 (“The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose”).[8]
----
O’Connell commented in the appeal of a case namedPeople v. Redden
Several Issues were discussed in this case:
*Whether a "registry identification card" is required for a § 8 affirmative defense under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA)(MCL 333.26421 et seq.);
*MCL 333.26428; People v. Stone Transp., Inc.; People v. Williams; Welch Foods, Inc. v. Attorney Gen.;
*Whether the trial court properly reversed the bindover decision; People v. Henderson; People v. Glass (After Remand); People v. Waltonen; People v. King; Whether a "bona fide physician-patient relationship" existed; MCL 333.26428(a)(1); People v. Peals;
*Whether the amount of marijuana defendants possessed was "reasonable" under the statute; MCL 333.26428(a)(2);
*Whether the marijuana was "being used for medical purposes"; MCL 333.26428(a)(3); *Whether defendants suffered from "serious or debilitating medical conditions";
*MCL 333.26427(b)(5)
This is a precent opinion of -Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
Case Name: People v. Redden , e-Journal Number: 46768
Judge(s): Meter and Owens; Concurrence – O’Connell
THE COURTS CONCLUSION
The court held that the district court did not err by permitting defendants to raise the affirmative defense even though neither satisfied the registry-identification-card requirement of § 4 and the trial court properly reversed the district court's dismissal of a single count of manufacturing 20 or more but less than 200 marijuana plants for each defendant and reinstated the charges where there was evidence that the defense was not complete, and there were colorable issues for the trier of fact.
HOW DID THIS CASE START
This case arose from the execution of a search warrant at defendants' residence,
DEFENDANTS HAD A LOT OF DOPE
which resulted in the discovery of approximately 1 1/2 ounces of marijuana and 21 marijuana plants.
BUT WE HAVE A MEDICAL CARD?
Defendants each turned over documents regarding their use of marijuana for medical purposes.
WHAT IS THE MMMA?
The MMMA went into effect on December 4, 2008, but, according to officer W, the state of Michigan did not begin issuing registry identification cards until April 4, 2009. The Michigan Department of Community Health issued medical marijuana registry identification cards to each defendant on April 20, 2009, but this was after the search in this case took place.
DR. SAID THESE SICK PEOPLE NEED HELP, NAUSEA
In support of the defense, they presented testimony from Dr. E, who signed the medical-marijuana authorization. Regarding defendant-R, E concluded that he had a debilitating condition that caused pain, satisfying the MMMA. Regarding defendant-C, E concluded that she suffered from nausea. According to E, each defendant was using other narcotics for their conditions, and he opined that access to marijuana would give them the opportunity to wean themselves off of those narcotics.
TWO PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS TO DISTRIBUTE
The parties stipulated that defendant-R had two previous convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. As part of the preliminary examination, defendants asserted the affirmative defense contained in § 8 of the MMMA. The plain language of § 8 does not place any restriction on defendants' raising of the affirmative defense.
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A CARD
Nevertheless, the prosecution argued that the affirmative defense under § 8 is unavailable to defendants because they did not possess valid registry identification cards at the time of the offense, in violation of § 4. Because of the differing levels of protection in §§ 4 and 8, the plain language of the statute establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does not satisfy § 4.
WAS THERE REAlLY A DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP HERE
As to the trial court reversing the district court's dismissal of charges and reinstating them, the court found that there were colorable issues concerning whether a bona fide physician-patient relationship existed,
WAS THE AMOUNT OF DOPE REASONABLE FOR A SICK PERSON
whether the amount of marijuana defendants possessed was reasonable under the statute,
WAS THE DOPE BEING USED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES
whether the marijuana in question was being used for medical purposes, and whether defendants suffered from serious or debilitating medical conditions.
COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE LOWER COURT
Affirmed. [7]
-----
FEDERALLIES WANT TO NIP MICHIGANS BUD.
Federal agents want Michigan to turn over medical marijuana records as part of an investigation in the Lansing area, a sign that voter approval won't stop federal authorities from enforcing their drug laws.[1]
SHOULD THE FEDERAL LAW BE CHANGED?
..there is clear consensus in the medical and scientific community that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. [5]
MICHIGAN VOTERS SAID WE WANT MARIJUANNA
Michigan voters agreed in 2008 to legalize the use of marijuana in treating some health problems.[1]
FED’S SAY WE DON’T CARE MICHIGAN
But "the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana remains illegal under federal law," Assistant U.S. Attorney John Bruha said in a court filing last week.[1]
FEDS WE WANT THE RECORDS MICHIGAN COLLECTED
The U.S. attorney's office has asked a judge to order the Department of Community Health to comply with a subpoena for records of seven people with medical marijuana or marijuana caregiver cards.[1]
MICHIGAN PROMISED THE RECORDS WOULD NOT BE GIVEN OUT
The state has been resisting turning over the information because of a privacy provision in Michigan law, Bruha said. No names or identifying information about the seven are included in court documents, nor are details about the Drug Enforcement Administration's investigation.[1]
FEDS INVADING RIGHTS OF 14 STATES
Michigan isn't alone in trying to sort out hazy medical marijuana laws. Fourteen other states have similar statutes — prompting raids and debate over local regulations in California, disputes over which doctors can recommend pot in Colorado and fights over proposed regulations in New Jersey.[4]
GREEN CARD ENFORCEMENT
Some police agencies want a better system to verify the authenticity of authorization cards. Physicians must certify patients would benefit from the pain-reducing aspects of marijuana, but it's left to the patients to register with the state and to self-regulate the amount and quality of the drug they take.[4]
"There is absolutely no connection to medicine and what's going on with medical marijuana right now," said Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard. "You don't have a required patient-doctor relationship. You don't go to a state-licensed, inspected and regulated facility like a pharmacy. ... It's creating already a lot of problems and a lot of misconceptions."[4]
DEA WE ARE TARGETING PEOPLE THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS.
DEA spokesman Rich Isaacson in Detroit wouldn't comment about the case Monday but said agents generally are "not targeting people that are unambiguously following the state medical marijuana law."[1]
WE ARE IN NO HURRY
"The DEA targets large scale drug trafficking organizations and does not expend its resources on individuals possessing 'user amount' quantities of illegal drugs," he said.
The federal government apparently hasn't been in a rush to get the information: The subpoena was given to the Department of Community Health in June.[1]
45,000 POTENTIAL PERPS GAVE THE GOV’T THE NAME OF THEIR DRUG OF CHOICE ,THEIR NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER. ALL THAT’S LEFT IS AN ARREST APPOINTMENT.
More than 45,000 people in Michigan are registered to use marijuana to ease the symptoms of cancer and other health problems. They can have up to 2 1/2 ounces of ready-to-use pot and up to 12 plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. They could also choose to have a registered caregiver grow the drug for them.[1]
Michigan's more than 45,000 licensed medical marijuana patients can possess up to 2½ ounces of usable marijuana and have up to 12 plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility — or have a registered caregiver grow the drug for them.[4]
A MAZE
Law enforcement officials have panned the law as poorly written, and an appeals court judge has called it a "maze." [1]
Many patients who have the state's OK to use marijuana to ease their pain from conditions ranging from cancer to Crohn's disease have been arrested and others have been fired because of different interpretations of the law approved by Michigan voters in late 2008. Courts face a rash of medical marijuana cases, with the law raising so many questions one state appeals court judge described reading it as a "maze."[3]
CITIZENS TURN TO HIGHER LEARNING
A class on legal issues is a staple at Med Grow Cannabis College in Southfield, one of the few medical marijuana trade schools in the nation. Nick Tennant, who last year opened up the trade school in suburban Detroit, said the goal of the class is to provide students some clarity about a law that has gray areas.[3]
"A lot of people want definitive answers," Tennant, 25, said. "It's just hard, because sometimes the attorneys can't really give a definitive answer. They can give almost a 'best practices, here's how you stay out of trouble, don't raise your risk tolerance in this gray area' type of thing."[3]
The school also provides students with instruction on the medical and horticultural aspects of growing pot for medicinal use.[3]
"We don't want the people and the public to be afraid of us or to think we're drug dealers, because that's really a popular misconception as well. We're here to help," said Travis Williams, a 38-year-old Detroiter who took classes at the school and now provides marijuana he grows himself to patients.[3]
HERE IS A VENDOR WITH A Mission Statement:
We are here to help qualifying patients obtain their medical marijuana patient certification through the state of Michigan. Our doctors (M.D.) are dedicated to assisting individuals on their process toward becoming a medical marijuana patient. Our licensed Michigan physicians are in full compliance with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Certification guidelines.[4]
Upon the physician’s review and approval, qualified patients will receive written recommendations and a signed State Certification Form that will allow them to apply for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Identification Card. [4]
ACLU SUING CITIES THAT ARE BLOCKING THE DOPERS
The American Civil Liberties Union is suing cities over anti-marijuana policies.[1]
Local governments are jumping in and passing their own ordinances, mostly trying to limit, ban or regulate a wave of businesses popping up to grow and sell the drug.[3]
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the southeast Michigan cities of Livonia, Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills and joined a lawsuit against the west Michigan city of Wyoming over policies it says effectively ban the use of medical marijuana.
Local governments counter that they are trying to make sure illegal drug dealing and other crimes don't take place in the absence of a clear state law.[3]
CIVIL UNREST
Many of the clashes are between medical marijuana advocates who say they're acting within the law and police who say they aren't. Adding to the tension is federal law that continues to ban the use and possession of marijuana. Although it won't be a top priority for lawmakers in a state swamped by economic and state government budget problems, Michigan's next Legislature likely will devote some time to clarifying the law[4]
DRUG ENFORCEMENT CAUSES VIOLENCE
This violent reality has emerged as an unintended consequence of a more than a half-century long experiment aimed at reducing illegal drug supply through aggressive law enforcement. Remarkably, despite the U.S. taxpayer spending an estimated $2.5 trillion since America's "War on Drugs" was launched by former president Richard Nixon, drugs remain more available today than at any time in our history, while drug market violence has continued to worsen. A recent international example is the upsurge in drug-related violence in Mexico, which has claimed more than 30,000 lives after Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched a crackdown on the cartels in 2006. [5]
The MMMA does not codify a right to use marijuana; instead, it merely provides a procedure through which seriously ill individuals using marijuana for its palliative effects can be identified and protected from prosecution under state law. Although these individuals are still violating the Public Health Code by using marijuana, the MMMA sets forth particular circumstances under which they will not be arrested or otherwise prosecuted for their lawbreaking. In so doing, the MMMA reflects the practical determination of the people of Michigan that, while marijuana is classified as a harmful substance and its use and manufacture should generally be prohibited, law
enforcement resources should not be used to arrest and prosecute those with serious medical conditions who use marijuana for its palliative effects.2[8]
mainstream view that it's nuts to keep busting pot users.[6]
Again, all individuals who possess, use, or manufacture marijuana in this state, including
qualifying patients who have been issued a valid registry identification card and their primary caregivers, are violating the federal Controlled Substances Act and are still subject to arrest and punishment for doing so.[8]
For those who instituted the process of placing the proposal on the
ballot, the MMMA was both an avenue for allowing society to explore the medical uses of marijuana, but also a first step in legalizing marijuana in Michigan. For some citizens who voted for the bill out of empathy for the terminally ill or those suffering from debilitating conditions, it was a vote for a medical process that would help those in need. Unfortunately for all concerned with the implementation of the medical mission, including compassionate-care groups, marijuana growers, marijuana users, marijuana dispensers, police, prosecutors, municipalities, townships, etc., the act has resulted in much confusion. And it has suggested itself to many purely recreational marijuana consumers as a vehicle to aid in their continuing illicit indulgence in that
vice.[8]
Sources-
[1]
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/feds_want_michigan_records_in.html
[2]
Comments in article at;
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/feds_want_michigan_records_in.html
[TRB]
ALL CAP LINES or followed by this cite are from Terry Bankert. http://attorneybankert.com/.
[3]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-22/michigan-s-medical-marijuana-law-shrouded-in-haze.html
[4]
http://www.greenmedicalclinic.com/
[5]
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Prohibition+marijuana+responsible+much+gang+violence+both+here+elsewhere/4031861/story.html
[6]
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/9967-pot-and-the-preacher
[7]
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
Case Name: People v. Redden
e-Journal Number: 46768
Judge(s): Meter and Owens; Concurrence – O’Connell
FOR PUBLICATION, September 14, 2010,9:20 a.m.
v No. 295809,Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2009-009020-AR
[8] Concurring opinion of juistive O’Connell
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
Case Name: People v. Redden
e-Journal Number: 46768
Judge(s): Meter and Owens; Concurrence – O’Connell
FOR PUBLICATION, September 14, 2010,9:20 a.m.
v No. 295809,Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2009-009020-AR Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
LAPEER FATHER DENIED CHANGE OF CUSTODY
Not enough evidence to support change was presented.
A Lapeer Michigan fathers defeat in his attempt to change custody is presented here by Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert.
The Lapeer Divorce Court decision on Lapeer Child custody is reviewed by Flint Child Custody Lawyer Terry Bankert with several sub Issues:
(1)Custody;
(2)Motion to change custody;
(3)The statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23);
(4)The trial court's findings on factors (g), (j), and (l);
(5)MCL 722.28;
(6) Mis cases
Baker v. Baker;
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer;
Mogle v. Scriver;
Phillips v. Jordan;
McCain v. McCain;
(7)The trial court's obligation to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence; Gorelick v. Department of State Hwys.;
(8)Whether the trial court's order as to the plaintiff-father's minor son from a prior relationship was permissible;
(9)The trial court's authority to add conditions to the parenting time order as needed; MCL 722.27a(8)
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS CASE
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: [] v. []
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
YOU SHOULD KNOW
Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/ .
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS LAPEER COURT GOT IT RIGHT
Concluding that the trial court's decision on best interest factors (g), (j), and (l) was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff-father's motion to change custody.
THE LOCAL JUDGE DETERMINES IF THE TESTIMONY IS WORTH LISTENING TO.
The LAPEER DIVORCE trial court was obligated to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence, and it complied with that requirement.
LOOK FIRST TO THE HISTORY
The LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY trial court's opinion addressed the parties' history and the evidence they presented.
THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY HARMED BECAUSE THESE PARENTS DO NOT GET ALONG.
The trial court determined that neither party exhibited mental or physical health issues, both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close relationship between the children and the other parent, and the children had been subjected to emotional or psychological harm from both parents.
THE LAPEER CUSTODY DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE.
"Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court's determination of credibility, the trial court's decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence."
THE LAPEER JUDGE DID A GOOD JOB
The court concluded that the trial court's review of the evidence and its opinion were thorough and thoughtful. "The trial court's conclusion was supported by the evidence and was within the range of principled outcomes."
DAD SAYS “YOU CANNOT GIVE ORDERS CONCERNING MY OTHER SON.” COURT OF APPEALS SAYS YES WE CAN !
The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court's order as to plaintiff's minor son from a prior relationship was impermissible because the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the boy and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence.
DID YOU KNOW A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO A PARENTING TIME ORDER
The court noted that the trial court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as needed.
A PARENT CAN BE ORDERED TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF A CASE.
The court held that the trial court did not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's son by stating when or where the boy could spend time with plaintiff. "Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction."
MOM WINS AND KEEPS CUSTODY
The court affirmed the trial court's order providing that the parties' minor children remain in the defendant-mother's physical custody with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THE LAPEER COURT MADE THE CORRECT DECISION
In this child LAPEER custody action, plaintiff- FATHER appeals by right from an order that denied his
motion to change custody and ordered that the parties’ minor children remain in the primary
physical custody of defendant -MOTHER with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody. We
affirm.
FATHER DOES NOT LIKE THE LAPEER DECISION AND TAKES THE CASE UP
On appeal, plaintiff -FATHER argues that the trial court erred in its decision because the great
weight of the evidence revealed that plaintiff had an advantage over defendant with regard to
three of the statutory best interest factors. We (MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS) disagree.
REVERSAL OF A LOWER COURT DECISION IS A DIFFICULT OBJECTIVE
This Court must affirm the trial court’s child custody decision “unless the trial judge
made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of
discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Baker v Baker, 411
Mich 567, 573; 309 NW2d 532 (1981).
DID THE LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE?
We review the trial court’s discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).
WHAT ARE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AND WHY DO WE CARE?
The best interest factors are set forth in MCL 722.23.
WEIGHT
Plaintiff-FATHER challenges the weight of the evidence regarding:
(g) the mental and physical health of the parties;
(j) the willingness of
the parties to work together and foster the relationship between the child and the other parent;
and
(l) any other factor considered by the court to be relevant.1
LAPEER HAD A FIVE DAY CUSTODY HEARING AND ISSUES A DETAILED OPINION
Over a five-day custody hearing, the court considered ample evidence involving the best interest factors and provided a detailed opinion recounting the evidence and outlining its findings pertaining to each best interest factor.
CREDIBILITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE LOWER COURT
In reviewing the trial court’s findings, this Court should defer to the fact-finder’s
determination of credibility. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 201; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).
WAS THERE A CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OPPOSITE THE LOWER COURT CONCLUSION?
Under the great weight of the evidence standard, a trial court’s findings regarding each custody
factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”
Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).
YOUR LOCAL JUDGE CAN DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
Notably, the trial court was not required to weigh the statutory best interest factors equally. McCain v
McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 131; 580 NW2d 485 (1998).
LOCAL COURT DECIDES WHAT IS IMPORTANT
Ultimately, the trial court was obligated to determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence presented, and it complied with that requirement. Gorelick v Dep’t of State Hwys, 127
Mich App 324, 333; 339 NW2d 635 (1983).
HISTORY OF THE PARTIES
The court’s opinion addressed the parties’ history
and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that neither party exhibited
mental or physical health issues, found that both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close
relationship between the child and the other parent, and found that the minor children had been
subjected to psychological or emotional harm from both parents.
LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY DECISION NOT AGAINST THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court’s determination of credibility, the
trial court’s decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence. MCL
722.28; Mogle, 241 Mich App at 201. The court’s review of the evidence was thorough and
thoughtful, as was its opinion. The trial court’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and
was within the range of principled outcomes. See Maldonado, 476 Mich at 388.
FATHER SAYS LEAVE MY SON OF ANOTHER WOMAN OUT OF THIS.
Plaintiff next argues on appeal that the court’s order regarding plaintiff’s other minor son
from a previous relationship was impermissible because the court did not have jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s son, and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence. We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS disagree.
PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS OF PARENTING TIME
In its order, the court provided conditions for the parties to follow in order to prevent
further abuse and for the best interests of the children. In part, the court ordered that plaintiff’s
son not be present while plaintiff was parenting his daughters unless they were in public or
during non-overnight family functions at the home of friends or relatives. This condition was
similar to the requirement stated in the original parenting time order dated August 29, 2006.
SUPERVISION NEEDED
Clearly the parties and the court had previously recognized the benefit of restricting the
unsupervised interaction of the children.
DAD SAYS THIS DISRUPTS MY VACATIONS
During plaintiff’s testimony, he acknowledged that he
planned to continue the restrictions to prevent further allegations, but noted that it was not an
ideal situation because it interfered with family functions and vacations.
A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO PROTECT A CHILD
Nevertheless, the court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as
needed. MCL 722.27a(8) provides, in pertinent part, the following:
A parenting time order may contain any reasonable terms or conditions
that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time by a parent,
including 1 or more of the following:
(c) Restrictions on the presence of third persons during parenting time.
(i) Any other reasonable condition determined to be appropriate in the
particular case.
THER COURT DECISION WAS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
In its order, the court prefaced the conditions placed on the parties by indicating that they
were necessary in order to prevent further abuse of the children and to satisfy the best interests of
the children. Even though the court stated that the disputed condition was for the safety of
plaintiff’s son, it appears that this condition was required for both his safety and as a precaution
for the minor children. In fact, the condition was one previously exercised by plaintiff
voluntarily to avoid further allegations of misconduct by defendant. The court did not exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s son by stating when or where plaintiff’s son could spend time with
plaintiff. Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with
the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between
plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction.2... We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS note also that the court was concerned with the actions by both parents and imposed
additional conditions upon the parties. Specifically, the court required both parents to engage in
counseling and to submit progress reports to the court. In light of the continued monitoring by
the court, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its ruling
---END----
Presented here by Flint Child Custody lawyer Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
References
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: []v. []
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
[trb]Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/
Bankerts comments are cited [trb] or are the block HEADLINES.
[2]Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 3 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx/?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=03 (last updated 12/10/2010 Sphere: Related Content
A Lapeer Michigan fathers defeat in his attempt to change custody is presented here by Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert.
The Lapeer Divorce Court decision on Lapeer Child custody is reviewed by Flint Child Custody Lawyer Terry Bankert with several sub Issues:
(1)Custody;
(2)Motion to change custody;
(3)The statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23);
(4)The trial court's findings on factors (g), (j), and (l);
(5)MCL 722.28;
(6) Mis cases
Baker v. Baker;
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer;
Mogle v. Scriver;
Phillips v. Jordan;
McCain v. McCain;
(7)The trial court's obligation to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence; Gorelick v. Department of State Hwys.;
(8)Whether the trial court's order as to the plaintiff-father's minor son from a prior relationship was permissible;
(9)The trial court's authority to add conditions to the parenting time order as needed; MCL 722.27a(8)
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS CASE
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: [] v. []
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
YOU SHOULD KNOW
Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/ .
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS LAPEER COURT GOT IT RIGHT
Concluding that the trial court's decision on best interest factors (g), (j), and (l) was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff-father's motion to change custody.
THE LOCAL JUDGE DETERMINES IF THE TESTIMONY IS WORTH LISTENING TO.
The LAPEER DIVORCE trial court was obligated to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence, and it complied with that requirement.
LOOK FIRST TO THE HISTORY
The LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY trial court's opinion addressed the parties' history and the evidence they presented.
THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY HARMED BECAUSE THESE PARENTS DO NOT GET ALONG.
The trial court determined that neither party exhibited mental or physical health issues, both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close relationship between the children and the other parent, and the children had been subjected to emotional or psychological harm from both parents.
THE LAPEER CUSTODY DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE.
"Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court's determination of credibility, the trial court's decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence."
THE LAPEER JUDGE DID A GOOD JOB
The court concluded that the trial court's review of the evidence and its opinion were thorough and thoughtful. "The trial court's conclusion was supported by the evidence and was within the range of principled outcomes."
DAD SAYS “YOU CANNOT GIVE ORDERS CONCERNING MY OTHER SON.” COURT OF APPEALS SAYS YES WE CAN !
The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court's order as to plaintiff's minor son from a prior relationship was impermissible because the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the boy and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence.
DID YOU KNOW A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO A PARENTING TIME ORDER
The court noted that the trial court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as needed.
A PARENT CAN BE ORDERED TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF A CASE.
The court held that the trial court did not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's son by stating when or where the boy could spend time with plaintiff. "Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction."
MOM WINS AND KEEPS CUSTODY
The court affirmed the trial court's order providing that the parties' minor children remain in the defendant-mother's physical custody with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THE LAPEER COURT MADE THE CORRECT DECISION
In this child LAPEER custody action, plaintiff- FATHER appeals by right from an order that denied his
motion to change custody and ordered that the parties’ minor children remain in the primary
physical custody of defendant -MOTHER with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody. We
affirm.
FATHER DOES NOT LIKE THE LAPEER DECISION AND TAKES THE CASE UP
On appeal, plaintiff -FATHER argues that the trial court erred in its decision because the great
weight of the evidence revealed that plaintiff had an advantage over defendant with regard to
three of the statutory best interest factors. We (MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS) disagree.
REVERSAL OF A LOWER COURT DECISION IS A DIFFICULT OBJECTIVE
This Court must affirm the trial court’s child custody decision “unless the trial judge
made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of
discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Baker v Baker, 411
Mich 567, 573; 309 NW2d 532 (1981).
DID THE LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE?
We review the trial court’s discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).
WHAT ARE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AND WHY DO WE CARE?
The best interest factors are set forth in MCL 722.23.
WEIGHT
Plaintiff-FATHER challenges the weight of the evidence regarding:
(g) the mental and physical health of the parties;
(j) the willingness of
the parties to work together and foster the relationship between the child and the other parent;
and
(l) any other factor considered by the court to be relevant.1
LAPEER HAD A FIVE DAY CUSTODY HEARING AND ISSUES A DETAILED OPINION
Over a five-day custody hearing, the court considered ample evidence involving the best interest factors and provided a detailed opinion recounting the evidence and outlining its findings pertaining to each best interest factor.
CREDIBILITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE LOWER COURT
In reviewing the trial court’s findings, this Court should defer to the fact-finder’s
determination of credibility. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 201; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).
WAS THERE A CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OPPOSITE THE LOWER COURT CONCLUSION?
Under the great weight of the evidence standard, a trial court’s findings regarding each custody
factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”
Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).
YOUR LOCAL JUDGE CAN DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
Notably, the trial court was not required to weigh the statutory best interest factors equally. McCain v
McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 131; 580 NW2d 485 (1998).
LOCAL COURT DECIDES WHAT IS IMPORTANT
Ultimately, the trial court was obligated to determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence presented, and it complied with that requirement. Gorelick v Dep’t of State Hwys, 127
Mich App 324, 333; 339 NW2d 635 (1983).
HISTORY OF THE PARTIES
The court’s opinion addressed the parties’ history
and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that neither party exhibited
mental or physical health issues, found that both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close
relationship between the child and the other parent, and found that the minor children had been
subjected to psychological or emotional harm from both parents.
LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY DECISION NOT AGAINST THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court’s determination of credibility, the
trial court’s decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence. MCL
722.28; Mogle, 241 Mich App at 201. The court’s review of the evidence was thorough and
thoughtful, as was its opinion. The trial court’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and
was within the range of principled outcomes. See Maldonado, 476 Mich at 388.
FATHER SAYS LEAVE MY SON OF ANOTHER WOMAN OUT OF THIS.
Plaintiff next argues on appeal that the court’s order regarding plaintiff’s other minor son
from a previous relationship was impermissible because the court did not have jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s son, and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence. We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS disagree.
PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS OF PARENTING TIME
In its order, the court provided conditions for the parties to follow in order to prevent
further abuse and for the best interests of the children. In part, the court ordered that plaintiff’s
son not be present while plaintiff was parenting his daughters unless they were in public or
during non-overnight family functions at the home of friends or relatives. This condition was
similar to the requirement stated in the original parenting time order dated August 29, 2006.
SUPERVISION NEEDED
Clearly the parties and the court had previously recognized the benefit of restricting the
unsupervised interaction of the children.
DAD SAYS THIS DISRUPTS MY VACATIONS
During plaintiff’s testimony, he acknowledged that he
planned to continue the restrictions to prevent further allegations, but noted that it was not an
ideal situation because it interfered with family functions and vacations.
A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO PROTECT A CHILD
Nevertheless, the court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as
needed. MCL 722.27a(8) provides, in pertinent part, the following:
A parenting time order may contain any reasonable terms or conditions
that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time by a parent,
including 1 or more of the following:
(c) Restrictions on the presence of third persons during parenting time.
(i) Any other reasonable condition determined to be appropriate in the
particular case.
THER COURT DECISION WAS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
In its order, the court prefaced the conditions placed on the parties by indicating that they
were necessary in order to prevent further abuse of the children and to satisfy the best interests of
the children. Even though the court stated that the disputed condition was for the safety of
plaintiff’s son, it appears that this condition was required for both his safety and as a precaution
for the minor children. In fact, the condition was one previously exercised by plaintiff
voluntarily to avoid further allegations of misconduct by defendant. The court did not exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s son by stating when or where plaintiff’s son could spend time with
plaintiff. Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with
the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between
plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction.2... We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS note also that the court was concerned with the actions by both parents and imposed
additional conditions upon the parties. Specifically, the court required both parents to engage in
counseling and to submit progress reports to the court. In light of the continued monitoring by
the court, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its ruling
---END----
Presented here by Flint Child Custody lawyer Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
References
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: []v. []
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
[trb]Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/
Bankerts comments are cited [trb] or are the block HEADLINES.
[2]Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 3 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx/?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=03 (last updated 12/10/2010 Sphere: Related Content
LAPEER FATHER DENIED CHANGE OF CUSTODY
Lapeer Child Custody decision upheld.
A Lapeer Michigan fathers defeat in his attempt to change custody is presented here by Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert.
The Lapeer Divorce Court decision on Lapeer Child custody is reviewed by Flint Child Custody Lawyer Terry Bankert with several sub Issues:
(1)Custody;
(2)Motion to change custody;
(3)The statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23);
(4)The trial court's findings on factors (g), (j), and (l);
(5)MCL 722.28;
(6) Mis cases
Baker v. Baker;
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer;
Mogle v. Scriver;
Phillips v. Jordan;
McCain v. McCain;
(7)The trial court's obligation to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence; Gorelick v. Department of State Hwys.;
(8)Whether the trial court's order as to the plaintiff-father's minor son from a prior relationship was permissible;
(9)The trial court's authority to add conditions to the parenting time order as needed; MCL 722.27a(8)
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS CASE
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: McNutt v. McNutt
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
YOU SHOULD KNOW
Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/ .
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS LAPEER COURT GOT IT RIGHT
Concluding that the trial court's decision on best interest factors (g), (j), and (l) was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff-father's motion to change custody.
THE LOCAL JUDGE DETERMINES IF THE TESTIMONY IS WORTH LISTENING TO.
The LAPEER DIVORCE trial court was obligated to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence, and it complied with that requirement.
LOOK FIRST TO THE HISTORY
The LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY trial court's opinion addressed the parties' history and the evidence they presented.
THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY HARMED BECAUSE THESE PARENTS DO NOT GET ALONG.
The trial court determined that neither party exhibited mental or physical health issues, both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close relationship between the children and the other parent, and the children had been subjected to emotional or psychological harm from both parents.
THE LAPEER CUSTODY DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE.
"Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court's determination of credibility, the trial court's decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence."
THE LAPEER JUDGE DID A GOOD JOB
The court concluded that the trial court's review of the evidence and its opinion were thorough and thoughtful. "The trial court's conclusion was supported by the evidence and was within the range of principled outcomes."
DAD SAYS “YOU CANNOT GIVE ORDERS CONCERNING MY OTHER SON.” COURT OF APPEALS SAYS YES WE CAN !
The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court's order as to plaintiff's minor son from a prior relationship was impermissible because the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the boy and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence.
DID YOU KNOW A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO A PARENTING TIME ORDER
The court noted that the trial court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as needed.
A PARENT CAN BE ORDERED TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF A CASE.
The court held that the trial court did not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's son by stating when or where the boy could spend time with plaintiff. "Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction."
MOM WINS AND KEEPS CUSTODY
The court affirmed the trial court's order providing that the parties' minor children remain in the defendant-mother's physical custody with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THE LAPEER COURT MADE THE CORRECT DECISION
In this child LAPEER custody action, plaintiff- FATHER appeals by right from an order that denied his
motion to change custody and ordered that the parties’ minor children remain in the primary
physical custody of defendant -MOTHER with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody. We
affirm.
FATHER DOES NOT LIKE THE LAPEER DECISION AND TAKES THE CASE UP
On appeal, plaintiff -FATHER argues that the trial court erred in its decision because the great
weight of the evidence revealed that plaintiff had an advantage over defendant with regard to
three of the statutory best interest factors. We (MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS) disagree.
REVERSAL OF A LOWER COURT DECISION IS A DIFFICULT OBJECTIVE
This Court must affirm the trial court’s child custody decision “unless the trial judge
made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of
discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Baker v Baker, 411
Mich 567, 573; 309 NW2d 532 (1981).
DID THE LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE?
We review the trial court’s discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).
WHAT ARE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AND WHY DO WE CARE?
The best interest factors are set forth in MCL 722.23.
WEIGHT
Plaintiff-FATHER challenges the weight of the evidence regarding:
(g) the mental and physical health of the parties;
(j) the willingness of
the parties to work together and foster the relationship between the child and the other parent;
and
(l) any other factor considered by the court to be relevant.1
LAPEER HAD A FIVE DAY CUSTODY HEARING AND ISSUES A DETAILED OPINION
Over a five-day custody hearing, the court considered ample evidence involving the best interest factors and provided a detailed opinion recounting the evidence and outlining its findings pertaining to each best interest factor.
CREDIBILITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE LOWER COURT
In reviewing the trial court’s findings, this Court should defer to the fact-finder’s
determination of credibility. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 201; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).
WAS THERE A CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OPPOSITE THE LOWER COURT CONCLUSION?
Under the great weight of the evidence standard, a trial court’s findings regarding each custody
factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”
Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).
YOUR LOCAL JUDGE CAN DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
Notably, the trial court was not required to weigh the statutory best interest factors equally. McCain v
McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 131; 580 NW2d 485 (1998).
LOCAL COURT DECIDES WHAT IS IMPORTANT
Ultimately, the trial court was obligated to determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence presented, and it complied with that requirement. Gorelick v Dep’t of State Hwys, 127
Mich App 324, 333; 339 NW2d 635 (1983).
HISTORY OF THE PARTIES
The court’s opinion addressed the parties’ history
and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that neither party exhibited
mental or physical health issues, found that both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close
relationship between the child and the other parent, and found that the minor children had been
subjected to psychological or emotional harm from both parents.
LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY DECISION NOT AGAINST THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court’s determination of credibility, the
trial court’s decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence. MCL
722.28; Mogle, 241 Mich App at 201. The court’s review of the evidence was thorough and
thoughtful, as was its opinion. The trial court’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and
was within the range of principled outcomes. See Maldonado, 476 Mich at 388.
FATHER SAYS LEAVE MY SON OF ANOTHER WOMAN OUT OF THIS.
Plaintiff next argues on appeal that the court’s order regarding plaintiff’s other minor son
from a previous relationship was impermissible because the court did not have jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s son, and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence. We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS disagree.
PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS OF PARENTING TIME
In its order, the court provided conditions for the parties to follow in order to prevent
further abuse and for the best interests of the children. In part, the court ordered that plaintiff’s
son not be present while plaintiff was parenting his daughters unless they were in public or
during non-overnight family functions at the home of friends or relatives. This condition was
similar to the requirement stated in the original parenting time order dated August 29, 2006.
SUPERVISION NEEDED
Clearly the parties and the court had previously recognized the benefit of restricting the
unsupervised interaction of the children.
DAD SAYS THIS DISRUPTS MY VACATIONS
During plaintiff’s testimony, he acknowledged that he
planned to continue the restrictions to prevent further allegations, but noted that it was not an
ideal situation because it interfered with family functions and vacations.
A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO PROTECT A CHILD
Nevertheless, the court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as
needed. MCL 722.27a(8) provides, in pertinent part, the following:
A parenting time order may contain any reasonable terms or conditions
that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time by a parent,
including 1 or more of the following:
(c) Restrictions on the presence of third persons during parenting time.
(i) Any other reasonable condition determined to be appropriate in the
particular case.
THER COURT DECISION WAS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
In its order, the court prefaced the conditions placed on the parties by indicating that they
were necessary in order to prevent further abuse of the children and to satisfy the best interests of
the children. Even though the court stated that the disputed condition was for the safety of
plaintiff’s son, it appears that this condition was required for both his safety and as a precaution
for the minor children. In fact, the condition was one previously exercised by plaintiff
voluntarily to avoid further allegations of misconduct by defendant. The court did not exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s son by stating when or where plaintiff’s son could spend time with
plaintiff. Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with
the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between
plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction.2... We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS note also that the court was concerned with the actions by both parents and imposed
additional conditions upon the parties. Specifically, the court required both parents to engage in
counseling and to submit progress reports to the court. In light of the continued monitoring by
the court, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its ruling
---END----
Presented here by Flint Child Custody lawyer Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
References
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: McNutt v. McNutt
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
[trb]Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/
Bankerts comments are cited [trb] or are the block HEADLINES.
[2]Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 3 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx/?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=03 (last updated 12/10/2010) Sphere: Related Content
A Lapeer Michigan fathers defeat in his attempt to change custody is presented here by Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert.
The Lapeer Divorce Court decision on Lapeer Child custody is reviewed by Flint Child Custody Lawyer Terry Bankert with several sub Issues:
(1)Custody;
(2)Motion to change custody;
(3)The statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23);
(4)The trial court's findings on factors (g), (j), and (l);
(5)MCL 722.28;
(6) Mis cases
Baker v. Baker;
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer;
Mogle v. Scriver;
Phillips v. Jordan;
McCain v. McCain;
(7)The trial court's obligation to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence; Gorelick v. Department of State Hwys.;
(8)Whether the trial court's order as to the plaintiff-father's minor son from a prior relationship was permissible;
(9)The trial court's authority to add conditions to the parenting time order as needed; MCL 722.27a(8)
UNPUBLISHED COURT OF APPEALS CASE
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: McNutt v. McNutt
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
YOU SHOULD KNOW
Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/ .
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS LAPEER COURT GOT IT RIGHT
Concluding that the trial court's decision on best interest factors (g), (j), and (l) was not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff-father's motion to change custody.
THE LOCAL JUDGE DETERMINES IF THE TESTIMONY IS WORTH LISTENING TO.
The LAPEER DIVORCE trial court was obligated to determine the credibility and weight of the evidence, and it complied with that requirement.
LOOK FIRST TO THE HISTORY
The LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY trial court's opinion addressed the parties' history and the evidence they presented.
THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN EMOTIONALLY HARMED BECAUSE THESE PARENTS DO NOT GET ALONG.
The trial court determined that neither party exhibited mental or physical health issues, both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close relationship between the children and the other parent, and the children had been subjected to emotional or psychological harm from both parents.
THE LAPEER CUSTODY DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE.
"Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court's determination of credibility, the trial court's decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence."
THE LAPEER JUDGE DID A GOOD JOB
The court concluded that the trial court's review of the evidence and its opinion were thorough and thoughtful. "The trial court's conclusion was supported by the evidence and was within the range of principled outcomes."
DAD SAYS “YOU CANNOT GIVE ORDERS CONCERNING MY OTHER SON.” COURT OF APPEALS SAYS YES WE CAN !
The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court's order as to plaintiff's minor son from a prior relationship was impermissible because the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the boy and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence.
DID YOU KNOW A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO A PARENTING TIME ORDER
The court noted that the trial court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as needed.
A PARENT CAN BE ORDERED TO KEEP OTHER PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF A CASE.
The court held that the trial court did not exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's son by stating when or where the boy could spend time with plaintiff. "Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction."
MOM WINS AND KEEPS CUSTODY
The court affirmed the trial court's order providing that the parties' minor children remain in the defendant-mother's physical custody with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody.
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SAYS THE LAPEER COURT MADE THE CORRECT DECISION
In this child LAPEER custody action, plaintiff- FATHER appeals by right from an order that denied his
motion to change custody and ordered that the parties’ minor children remain in the primary
physical custody of defendant -MOTHER with the parties continuing to share joint legal custody. We
affirm.
FATHER DOES NOT LIKE THE LAPEER DECISION AND TAKES THE CASE UP
On appeal, plaintiff -FATHER argues that the trial court erred in its decision because the great
weight of the evidence revealed that plaintiff had an advantage over defendant with regard to
three of the statutory best interest factors. We (MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS) disagree.
REVERSAL OF A LOWER COURT DECISION IS A DIFFICULT OBJECTIVE
This Court must affirm the trial court’s child custody decision “unless the trial judge
made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of
discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28; see also Baker v Baker, 411
Mich 567, 573; 309 NW2d 532 (1981).
DID THE LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE?
We review the trial court’s discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted). A court abuses its discretion when its decision is outside the range of principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006).
WHAT ARE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS AND WHY DO WE CARE?
The best interest factors are set forth in MCL 722.23.
WEIGHT
Plaintiff-FATHER challenges the weight of the evidence regarding:
(g) the mental and physical health of the parties;
(j) the willingness of
the parties to work together and foster the relationship between the child and the other parent;
and
(l) any other factor considered by the court to be relevant.1
LAPEER HAD A FIVE DAY CUSTODY HEARING AND ISSUES A DETAILED OPINION
Over a five-day custody hearing, the court considered ample evidence involving the best interest factors and provided a detailed opinion recounting the evidence and outlining its findings pertaining to each best interest factor.
CREDIBILITY IS IN THE EYE OF THE LOWER COURT
In reviewing the trial court’s findings, this Court should defer to the fact-finder’s
determination of credibility. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 201; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).
WAS THERE A CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OPPOSITE THE LOWER COURT CONCLUSION?
Under the great weight of the evidence standard, a trial court’s findings regarding each custody
factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”
Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000) (citations omitted).
YOUR LOCAL JUDGE CAN DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
Notably, the trial court was not required to weigh the statutory best interest factors equally. McCain v
McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 131; 580 NW2d 485 (1998).
LOCAL COURT DECIDES WHAT IS IMPORTANT
Ultimately, the trial court was obligated to determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence presented, and it complied with that requirement. Gorelick v Dep’t of State Hwys, 127
Mich App 324, 333; 339 NW2d 635 (1983).
HISTORY OF THE PARTIES
The court’s opinion addressed the parties’ history
and the evidence presented by both parties. The court concluded that neither party exhibited
mental or physical health issues, found that both parties were unwilling to facilitate a close
relationship between the child and the other parent, and found that the minor children had been
subjected to psychological or emotional harm from both parents.
LAPEER CHILD CUSTODY DECISION NOT AGAINST THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
Based on the evidence, and deferring to the trial court’s determination of credibility, the
trial court’s decision on these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence. MCL
722.28; Mogle, 241 Mich App at 201. The court’s review of the evidence was thorough and
thoughtful, as was its opinion. The trial court’s conclusion was supported by the evidence and
was within the range of principled outcomes. See Maldonado, 476 Mich at 388.
FATHER SAYS LEAVE MY SON OF ANOTHER WOMAN OUT OF THIS.
Plaintiff next argues on appeal that the court’s order regarding plaintiff’s other minor son
from a previous relationship was impermissible because the court did not have jurisdiction over
plaintiff’s son, and its decision was against the great weight of the evidence. We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS disagree.
PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS OF PARENTING TIME
In its order, the court provided conditions for the parties to follow in order to prevent
further abuse and for the best interests of the children. In part, the court ordered that plaintiff’s
son not be present while plaintiff was parenting his daughters unless they were in public or
during non-overnight family functions at the home of friends or relatives. This condition was
similar to the requirement stated in the original parenting time order dated August 29, 2006.
SUPERVISION NEEDED
Clearly the parties and the court had previously recognized the benefit of restricting the
unsupervised interaction of the children.
DAD SAYS THIS DISRUPTS MY VACATIONS
During plaintiff’s testimony, he acknowledged that he
planned to continue the restrictions to prevent further allegations, but noted that it was not an
ideal situation because it interfered with family functions and vacations.
A JUDGE CAN ADD CONDITIONS TO PROTECT A CHILD
Nevertheless, the court was authorized to add conditions to the parenting time order, as
needed. MCL 722.27a(8) provides, in pertinent part, the following:
A parenting time order may contain any reasonable terms or conditions
that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time by a parent,
including 1 or more of the following:
(c) Restrictions on the presence of third persons during parenting time.
(i) Any other reasonable condition determined to be appropriate in the
particular case.
THER COURT DECISION WAS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION TO PROTECT CHILDREN
In its order, the court prefaced the conditions placed on the parties by indicating that they
were necessary in order to prevent further abuse of the children and to satisfy the best interests of
the children. Even though the court stated that the disputed condition was for the safety of
plaintiff’s son, it appears that this condition was required for both his safety and as a precaution
for the minor children. In fact, the condition was one previously exercised by plaintiff
voluntarily to avoid further allegations of misconduct by defendant. The court did not exercise
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s son by stating when or where plaintiff’s son could spend time with
plaintiff. Instead, it exercised jurisdiction over the custody and parenting time arrangement with
the parties as it related to their daughters, taking into consideration the relationship between
plaintiff and the girls. This was a proper exercise of jurisdiction.2... We-MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS note also that the court was concerned with the actions by both parents and imposed
additional conditions upon the parties. Specifically, the court required both parents to engage in
counseling and to submit progress reports to the court. In light of the continued monitoring by
the court, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in its ruling
---END----
Presented here by Flint Child Custody lawyer Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/
References
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: McNutt v. McNutt
e-Journal Number: 47514,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Owens, K.F. Kelly, and Fort Hood
UNPUBLISHED, December 2, 2010 ,v No. 298480’Lapeer Circuit Court , LC No. 05-035949-DM
[trb]Genesee Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert presents this article in the style of SEO. The majority of the content is from[1] but changes for presentation have been made. You should seek advice or review the original material before reliance on its content. Questions may be directed to Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert, 810-235-1970, http://attorneybankert.com/
Bankerts comments are cited [trb] or are the block HEADLINES.
[2]Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 3 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx/?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=03 (last updated 12/10/2010) Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
