DO YOU WANT TO MOVE YOUR KIDS OUT OF STATE? CALL ATTORNEY BANKERT (810) 235-1970

HOW DOES THE COURT MAKE THIS  DECISION?

WHAT ISSUES ARE  INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION?

The issues are:

1.Custody;     

2.Motion to change children’s domicile; MCL 722.31(4); Rains v. Rains; Brown v. Loveman; Gagnon v. Glowacki;

3. Whether the proposed change would alter the children’s established custodial environment;

 4.Modification of the parenting-time schedule; MCL 722.27a(1); Shade v. Wright; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Yachcik v. Yachcik

Summary of a recent case.

1.The parties judgement awarded them 50/50 parenting time.

2.The defendant proposed a parenting time schedule whereby the children would live primarily with him and plaintiff would have the children on weekends, most school breaks, and throughout the week in the summer.

3. This proposal would have reduced plaintiff’s parenting time by 26 overnights and resulted in a “43/57” split.

4. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion for change of domicile and requested that his proposed schedule be “flip flopped” when defendant moved to Indiana.

Deciding a motion for a change of domicile is a four-step process:

 First, a trial court must determine whether the moving party has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the factors enumerated in MCL 722.31(4), the so-called D’Onofrio factors, support a motion for a change of domicile.

 Second, if the factors support a change in domicile, then the trial court must then determine whether an established custodial environment exists. 

Third, if an established custodial environment exists, the trial court must then determine whether the change of domicile would modify or alter that established custodial environment. 

Fourth and Finally, if, and only if, the trial court finds that a change of domicile would modify or alter the child’s established custodial environment must the trial court determine whether the change in domicile would be in the child’s best interests by considering whether the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 have been established by clear and convincing evidence. [Rains v Rains, 301 Mich App 313, 325; 836 NW2d 709 (2013).]

Presented here by Terry Bankert A Flint / Genesee County Family Law Attorney . Initial Consultation free.  www.attorneybankert.com    (810) 235-1970

SOURCE

e-Journal #: 72186

Case: Grayer v. Grayer, unpublished 1/21/2020

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion )

Judges: Per Curiam – Cameron, Shapiro, and Swartzle The text has been modified for presentation

Daily internet new from Flint MI USA

Sphere: Related Content