UNFOUNDED CPS COMPLAINTS TO STOP VISITATION . (810) 235-1970

WILL UNFOUNDED CPS CALLS CHANGE CHILD CUSTODY?

In a recent Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals direction , not controlling, was given on this question. On Appeal “ ... defendant suggests that plaintiff’s alleged use of innocent agents to file multiple CPS reports against him was not given sufficient weight and should have warranted a change in custody, we disagree.”

( source:  Unpublished M.A. Case 5/2/19 No. 345501, Alger County Family Division LC 14-007383-DC)

AN ALLEGATION DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TRUE.

The Court stated  “[a] court need not give equal weight to all the factors, but may consider the relative weight of the factors as appropriate to the circumstances.” Sinicropi, 273 Mich App at 184. The trial court did so here. “

FOUR CPS COMPLAINTS INCLUDING SEXUAL ABUSE BEFORE COURT DATES.

“At the hearing, defendant testified that at least four CPS complaints were filed against him, and that three of those complaints involved sexual abuse allegations related to the child.

WAS PLAINTIFF JUST TRYING TO BLOCK DEFENDANTS PARENTING TIME?

Defendant’s counsel argued that CPS investigations were being filed before court hearings and being filed through agencies as part of plaintiff’s effort to keep the child from visitation. “

CLAIMS THAT NEW SPOUSE ABUSING TO CHILD.

“Additionally, one of the CPS investigators charged with investigating an April 2018 complaint, which alleged that defendant’s wife struck the child 14 times, testified that she felt that there might have been some coaching occurring with the child because his answers were inconsistent.”

“ A copy of that CPS investigation report was presented to the trial court. Plaintiff testified at the hearing that she had not made any of the claims to CPS. She indicated that the reports were made by the child’s primary care physician, an emergency room doctor, a police officer, the child’s psychologist, and an unknown person “downstate.” “

“
“Plaintiff acknowledged that she took the child to the medical appointments and spoke with the police officer. Plaintiff indicated that she was unaware of the psychologist’s report to CPS until the investigation was opened and CPS arrived at her home.”

“ Plaintiff denied that she ever told the child what to say to CPS. In fact, plaintiff opined that the child was making allegations to avoid going to parenting time, and that “he was making some of the stuff up.” “

“Plaintiff also testified that she did not believe the child’s report that defendant’s wife struck him. The trial court informed the parties that it had read and considered the CPS report prior to rendering its decision.”

NONE OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE FOUND TO BE TRUE

“ In its analysis of best-interest factor (l), the trial court noted that repeated CPS allegations “certainly” favored defendant because none were substantiated. The trial court showed concern for the minor’s dishonesty during his interview, and assigned “more responsibility” to plaintiff for triggering the investigations, but could not place responsibility on her for fabricating the information going into the investigations.”

BEST INTEREST FACTOR L

“ Ultimately, the trial court concluded that for factor (l), “more things lean towards [defendant],” but there were also aspects that supported the child’s current home environment. Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the parties were equal “on almost all factors.” Plaintiff was favored in factor (d) and some aspects of factor (l), and defendant was slightly favored on factor (e) and some aspects of factor (l).”

“ The trial court indicated that after consideration of the factors, defendant ultimately failed to convince the court by clear and convincing evidence that a change in custody was in the child’s best interests. It is clear from the record that the trial court adequately considered and addressed the CPS allegations and investigations in reaching its conclusions.”

Presently here as an example of how  CPS complaints are handled. By Terry Bankert Flint Divorce Attorney (810) 235-1970 www.attorneybankert.com

Sphere: Related Content

BEST INTEREST FACTORS

BEST INTEREST OF CHILD FYI-“The best interests of the child are the controlling consideration in custody disputes between parents, between agencies, and between third persons. MCL 722.27a. The best interests factors are set forth at MCL 722.23 (see §3.8). “

“Before granting primary physical custody to a party in a custody determination, the trial court must consider each of

the statutory factors and make specific findings on the record. Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 512 NW2d 851 (1994); Schubring v Schubring, 190 Mich App 468, 476 NW2d 434 (1991); Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 395 NW2d 65 (1986).”

“A court’s decision regarding custody must be based on “competent evidence adduced at trial.” DeBoe v DeBoe, No 246083 (Mich Ct App Sept 18, 2003) (unpublished).”

Presented here by Attorney Terry Bankert a Flint Family Law, Divorce, Lawyer. 810-235-1970. http://www.attorneybankert.com.

722.23 “Best interests of the child” defined.

“Sec. 3..Evaluation of the 12 best interests factors depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Custody is not awarded on the basis of which parent “scores” the most points. Lustig v Lustig, 99 Mich App 716, 299 NW2d 375 (1980). If each parent “wins” on six of the factors, it does not mean that the party with the burden of proof cannot be awarded custody. Heid v AAASulewski, 209 Mich App 587, 532 NW2d 205 (1995).”

“Factors need not be given equal weight. The weight to be given any factor is ultimately left to the court’s discretion. Riemer v Johnson, 311 Mich App 632, 876 NW2d 279 (2015) (not error for court to order joint physical custody when more best interests factors favored father because court could value factors differently); McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 580 NW2d 485 (1998) (that father’s vindictiveness would probably act to destroy parent-child relationship with mother did not outweigh other factors so as to award custody to mother).”

“MCL 722.23 defines the “ ‘best interests of the child’ ” as “the sum total of the” factors set forth in MCL 722.23(a)-(l). “In child custody cases, the family court must consider all the factors delineated in MCL 722.23 and explicitly state its findings and conclusions with respect to each of them.” Spires v Bergman, 276 Mich App 432, 443; 741 NW2d 523 (2007). As a general rule, we defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations, “and the trial court has discretion to accord differing weight to the best-interest factors.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). ( Source Bogue v Swinson Unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals, 4/16/2019,e-journal #70283,No. Gladwin Circuit Court Family Division LC no. 16-008762-DM.)”.

Sphere: Related Content