Mentioned; MEL GIBSON, OKSANA, IONIA DIVORCE CHILD CUSTODY , FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER TERRY BANKERT 235-1970

Child Custody disputes affects our families and the rich and the famous like Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva .

We have heard that Oksana Grigorieva will be Under-oath tomorrow in the Child Custody Case against Mel Gibson.[1] Once a Divorce Court established custody that parens , like in the Ionia case below, can petition the court later for a change in custody.

WHAT CAN YOU DO IF YOUR EX’S NEW LOVER SEXUALLY ABUSES YOUR KIDS AND YOUR TAKEN TO COURT? IONIA FAMILY COURT RULES ...JUST SAY IT WON’T HAPPEN AGAIN.

Here, however, the potentially abusive environment has been altered by plaintiff’s agreement to assure that her former fiancé will not be around the children “in perpetuity.”

Ionia Child Custody Court decision commented on by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert 810-235-1970. The Ionia County Michigan Child Custody Court Issues discussed are :

I.Child custody;

A.Whether the trial court properly declined to hold a child custody hearing on the defendant-father's motion for a change of custody;

B.Whether there was a "proper cause or a change of circumstances" to change custody;

C:The "great weight of the evidence standard of review"; Corporan v. Henton; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; Applicability of In re Rinesmith and In re Brown; Children's Protective Services (CPS)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished July 27 2010)
Case Name: Filsinger v. Filsinger
No. 295643
Ionia Circuit Court
LC No. 2007-025702-DM
e-Journal Number: 46468
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Hoekstra and Beckering; Concurring in result only - Jansen

NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE , NO CHANGE IN CHILD CUSTODY

The Michigan Court of Appeals decided the Ionia Child Custody court's decision to not reopen the custody issue was proper based on the facts of the case where the evidence supported a finding that there was no continuing condition that could have a significant effect on the children. Thus, the trial court did not err in declining to hold a child custody hearing.

The couple had children two boys. Instead of a trial with a judge decison they agreed to the terms in a judgement of divorce.

MOM GOT PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN

They were granted joint legal custody of the boys, and the plaintiff-mother was awarded sole physical custody.



WANT TO CHANGE CUSTODY IN YOUR CASE, HERE IS THE FIRST STEP

In a child custody dispute, the trial court may change a previous child custody order “for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).

The court may not change the custody order—or even hold a child custody hearing—unless the moving party establishes proper cause or change in circumstances. Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). In deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, the court
must first determine “whether there are contested factual issues that must be resolved in order for the court to make an informed decision on the motion.” MCR 3.210(C)(8); see also Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 512. Here, there was a contested factual issue, i.e., whether the evidence
demonstrated that the fiancé had abused the children. The trial court determined that the resolution of that issue was not necessary to decide the motion, because the fiancé was out of the children’s lives.


DAD SAYS THINGS HAVE CHANGED , THE NEW BOY FRIEND SEXUALLY ABUSING CHILDREN THE BOYS SHOULD BE WITH HIM

Later, defendant filed a motion for change in custody alleging certain behavior and statements of the boys indicated plaintiff's fiancé had sexually abused them.

SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN GOES TO A REFEREE NOT A JUDGE!

At the referee hearing, defendant testified the older boy told him the fiancé slept in the younger child's bed, and the younger child told him the fiancé had put his finger in the boys' "bottom."

CPS ARRIVES ON THE SCENE

Defendant contacted CPS, who opened an investigation. CPS told defendant to keep the boys pending the investigation and interviewed them. The boys did not disclose any abuse. CPS closed its investigation and told defendant to return the boys to the mother's custody. He was not satisfied with this result and asked CPS what else he could do. CPS recommended a doctor he should contact.

DOCTOR DRAGGED INTO THE CASE

The doctor interviewed the boys and recommended that they be seen by H, a Ph.D.

DAD PLAYS THE PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDER CARD

At the time of the hearing, a PPO was in place prohibiting contact between the fiancé and the boys.

DOC THINKS THERE WAS SEXUAL ABUSE

H testified she believed the fiancé had sexually abused the boys but admitted she did not know what had happened. Plaintiff testified there was no "evidence indicating that something happened," and she opined there were other explanations for why the boys "made statements to that effect."

MOMMY AGEES TO COUNSELING

The mother agreed to counseling for the boys if it was recommended.

REFEREE SAYS THERES ENOUGH HERE, SEXUAL ABUSE AS BASIS TO CHANGE CUSTODY

The hearing referee found proper cause and a change of circumstances to justify revisiting the custody order.

CASE PROCEDURALLY FORCED BACK TO MAKE THE JUDGE DECIDE


NOW THAT MOM IS LOSING SHE ANNOUNCES A BREAKUP WITH THE BOY FRIEND

In the IONIA CHILD CUSTODY court, the mother changed her position and said she would no longer reintroduce contact with the fiancé, she had called off the engagement, and the fiancé would never have contact again with the boys.

COURT SAYS EVEN IF BOY FRIEND SEXUALLY ABUSED THE BOYS UNDER MOTHERS WATCH...HE’S GONE NOW, MOM SAID SO.

The IONIA CHILD CUSTODY court held that even if the fiancé had abused the boys, there was no proper cause or change of circumstances for holding an evidentiary hearing in light of the fact the fiancé was out of the boys' life.

Previously mom had said that she felt that when the PPO expired, she would seek to gradually reintroduce the children’s
time with her fiancé, but that she “would be there at all times.”
She then said “The hearing referee found that proper cause and a change in circumstances existed to justify revisiting the custody order.

Before the trial court, plaintiff changed her position with respect to contact between the fiancé and the boys.

She said that she was no longer planning to reintroduce contact, and had called off the engagement. She agreed that her fiancé would have no contact with the boys “in perpetuity.” The trial court made no finding with respect to whether there had been abuse, but found that, even assuming the fiancé had abused the boys, there was no
proper cause or change in circumstances for holding a custody hearing, in light of the fact that the fiancé was out of the boys’ life.

DAD DISAGREES WITH THIS ONE

Defendant disagreed and argued the mother failed to protect the boys and the trial court erred in finding the problem was fixed.

THE LESSON HERE. WHEN YOU GET IN TROUBLE IN FAMILY COURT JUST SAY I’LL NEVER DO IT AGAIN .

The court found the potentially abusive environment was altered by the mother's agreement to assure her former fiancé would not be around the boys "in perpetuity," the circumstances had evolved, and the extent of effect necessary to breach the statutory barrier against revisiting custody orders was not established.

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH THE IONIA CHILD CUSTODY COURT?
Affirmed.

DAD FAILED IN HIS ATTEMPT TO PROTECT HIS CHILDREN FROM THEIR MOTHERS BAD CHOICES

Presented here by
Terry R. Bankert
http;//attorneybankert.com



--
[1]
http://www.buzztab.com/celebrity/oksana-under-oath-child-custody-case/
[TRB]
This case has been altered for the purpose of lay understanding,media presentation and SEO. Don not rely on it without consulting the origional document and consulting counsel. The Cap headlines are the opinion of Terry Bankert

Sphere: Related Content