Flint Divorce Lawyer discusses several Divorce Issues:
The Law of CHILD CUSTODY IN THE NEWS AND A RECENT OPINION OF THE MICHIGAN APPELLATE COURT
We know Child Custody battles are common place. The most known are media celebrities. If it can happen to them it can happen to you.
RECENTLY JON GOSSLIN STOPS CUSTODY BATTLE WITH KATE GOSSELIN
WE READ IN TMZ.com the octodad is planning to drop his custody and child support lawsuit against ex Kate Gosselin.[2]
GOSSLIN has reportedly hired a new lawyer since firing his former attorney, Anthony List, the man who called Kate an "absentee mom" and filed legal papers on behalf of Jon seeking full custody of their kids.[2]
"Jon GOSSLIN has retained a new lawyer and they're now trying to work out an arrangement that is both private and between themselves," a source told E! Online.[2]
MONEY WISE Since there is a noticeably large difference between Jon and Kate's income, the exes are reportedly working together to revise the custody and child support agreement that is currently in action.[2]
WITHOUT LEGAL RIGHTS SANDRA BULLOCK TO NOT SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OF JESSE JAMES
AWARD WINNING Actress Sandra Bullock will not be fighting for the custody of love rat husband Jesse James children.. [4]
‘The Blind Side’ actress dumped Jesse after a string of his affairs surfaced last month. And despite her mother -role in the lives of his three children, Bullock’s rep revealed that there would not be a custody battle. [4]
RODRIGUEZ WINS CUSTODY CHANGE AND GETS HIS SON
THE CHILD WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK… because the two weren't married, Tina Helfer had automatic custody and legally Richard Rodriguez could do nothing to get his child back.
"I had no rights," Rodriguez says.[3]
The CUSTODY CHANGED turned in November of 2009 and the court awarded Rodriguez full custody. [[3]
As for TINA Helfer, the Berkshire County District Attorney's office says she won't be facing charges. The office says the "woman had legal custody of Ricky when she left Massachusetts. A year and a half later we hear about a custody change. Our understanding is that this woman had no notice of the change. Therefore, she is not knowingly involved in any criminal violation."[3]
THIS FAMILY LAW CASE FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY DIVISION SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE PARENT DENYS PARENTING TIME CUSTODY CAN BE LOST.
Custody; The Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Fletcher v. Fletcher; Phillips v. Jordan; Reed v. Reed; [1]
Exclusion of evidence related to the defendant-mother's criminal history; [1]
Distinction between evidence to be considered in evaluating the statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23) and evidence admissible in determining whether a "change of circumstances" has occurred; Brausch v. Brausch; MRE 609(c); [1]
Challenges to the trial court's findings on best interest factors (b), (c), (f), and (h); [1]
Principle the best interest factors do not need to be given equal weight; McCain v. McCain; Pierron v. Pierron; Challenge to the trial court's finding "clear and convincing evidence" supported modifying custody; MCL 722.28; MCL 722.27(1)(c); [1]
Whether the trial court considered the parties' ability to cooperate in granting joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a; Fisher v. Fisher; Nielsen v. Nielsen; The parenting time schedule.[1]
The Michigan Court of Appeals decided the trial court’s ( Wayne Circuit Court Family Division) factual findings on the best interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody to grant the parties joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children and setting a parenting time schedule. [1]
THIS IS A POST JUDGEMENT ACTION
The parties separated in 2005.
WHILE DIVORCE UNDERWAY MOM GETS IN FIGHT WITH DADS GIRLFRIEND
The children resided with defendant -MOTHER, until July 2006 when, during the
pendency of the divorce proceedings, defendant was arrested and charged with domestic
violence, assault and robbery pertaining to an incident involving plaintiff and his girlfriend. Following this incident, plaintiff was granted temporary physical custody of the minor children.[1]
DAD GET GIRLFRIEND AND CHILD
After this incident, plaintiff-FATHER was granted temporary physical custody of the children.[1]
DIVORCE JUDGE THOUGHT MOM GOING TO JAIL
In April 2007, the parties were divorced via a consent judgment which, in anticipation of defendant's incarceration due to the July 2006 incident, awarded plaintiff -FATHER temporary legal custody with defendant to have parenting time. [1]
MOM THOUGHT THAT WHEN OUT OF JAIL SHE COULD GET HER CHILD BACK
The judgment provided defendant was to petition the trial court for reinstatement of joint legal custody and additional parenting time after the end of her jail sentence and on showing her compliance with any probation requirements. [1]
MOM IN JAIL 9 DAYS THEN ON TETHER
She was sentenced to a year in jail with work release, but was only required to serve nine days and was released on a tether. She reportedly complied with her probation requirements. [1]
DAD SAID NO PARENTING TIME FOR DAD
Despite the fact defendant did not remain incarcerated and was available, plaintiff denied her parenting time. [1]
COURT FOUND DAD IN CONTEMPT
While the parties entered into a consent order detailing defendant's parenting time, the trial court later found plaintiff-FATHER in contempt for failing to cooperate and for ongoing violation of the parenting time schedule. [1]
In essence, the trial court determined that defendant’s compliance with the terms of her
probation in conjunction with the “ongoing conflict between the parents . . . and the apparent interference . . . regarding mother exercising any parenting time with the children, and the impact that such conflict was having on the minor children” necessitated a review of the existing custody arrangement.[1]
MOM SAYS JUDGE THIS IS NOT WORKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAS TO BE ORDERED
Defendant-MOTHER filed a motion for change of custody, seeking joint legal and physical custody. [1]
JUDGE SAYS TO MOM THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND I WILL LISTEN TO WHAN YOU HAVE TO SAY
The trial court, Wayne Circuit Court Family Divison, determined proper cause and a sufficient change in circumstances existed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard to decide if a modification in custody was in the children's best interests. [1]
[I]n order to establish a “change of circumstances,” a movant must prove that,
since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the
child, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being,
have materially changed. [Brausch v Brasuch, 283 Mich App 339, 355-356; 770
NW2d 77 (2009), citing Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 512-514;
675 NW2d 847 (2003) (emphasis added).][1]
NOT ALL FACTORS IN LIFE ARE EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE
The court MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS noted while plaintiff - FATHER contested the trial court's finding on factor (f), this factor was found to be in his favor and it appeared he misconstrued the precept the factors do not need to be given equal weight. [1]
AFTER INITIAL HURDEL IS MET BY THE CHANGING PARTY THE COURT MUST ANALYIZE THE STATUATORY BEST INTERES FACTORS
As to the other challenged factors, the court concluded the trial court's findings the parties were equal on (b) and (h) while (c) favored defendant were not against the great weight of the evidence. Factor (j) was clearly important to the trial court in weighing the children's best interests. [1]
I THINK J IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SAID THE JUDGE
The trial court, WAYNE, ruled (j) strongly favored defendant and was entitled to "significant weight" in the overall balancing of the factors. [1]
Finding the existence of an established custodial environment with plaintiff, the trial
court properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether an alteration in custody was in the best interests of the children. In evaluating the best interest factors, the trial court found that the parties were equal on seven of the 12 factors.2 Plaintiff was favored on factors (d) [time child has lived in a stable environment] and (f) [moral fitness of the parties]. Defendant was also favored on two factors: (c) [capacity to provide for material needs of child] and (j) [willingness to cooperate and foster relationship]. Although the trial court met, in camera, [ IN JUDGES OFFICE PROBABLY] with both minor children, only the older child was determined to be of sufficient age to express a reasonable preference.3 Following its analysis of the best interest factors, the trial court concluded that custody would be modified so that plaintiff and defendant would have joint legal and physical custody of the minor children and a parenting schedule was delineated. [1]
Clearly, of significant importance to the trial court in weighing the best interests of the
minor children was factor (j), which comprises “the willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent/child relationship between the child and the other party.” Reviewing the history of these parties, the trial court noted that defendant had provided “liberal access” of the minor children to plaintiff when they were originally in her custody. However, citing the history of interaction following the award of physical custody to plaintiff and the necessity of a show cause hearing resulting in finding plaintiff in contempt of court for repeated violation of parenting time orders, the trial court emphasized that plaintiff was
found to have “demonstrated a clear pattern of denying parenting time . . . despite the negative impact that this has on the children.” In addition, the trial court observed that plaintiff had “continued to interfere” with defendant’s parenting time with the minor children through scheduling their participation in various activities and camps during defendant’s “scheduled weekends” without consultation or agreement beforehand. The trial court also determined that plaintiff was unwilling to promote the relationship between defendant and the minor children by systematically denying her access to educational and health information and appointments or activities, precluding her participation in meaningful aspects of the children’s lives. As such, the
trial court ruled that this factor strongly favored defendant and would be given “significant weight” in the overall balancing of the best interest factors in evaluating the modification of custody.[1]
MOM WINS AND GETS CUSTODY BACK
The court concluded the trial court's decision was based on clear and convincing evidence the change in custody would facilitate an ongoing relationship between the children and both parents, and was in the children's best interests. Affirmed. [1]
Posted here 4/29/10 by
Terry R. Bankert
Flint Divorce Attorney
http://attorneybankert.com
[1]
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished, 04/20/2010)
Case Name: G v. G, e-Journal Number: 45601, No. 293817 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division Michigan, LC No. 06-605226-DM
[2]
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_jon_gosselin_drops_custody_lawsuit_against_exwife_kate_couple_ordered_to_take_pa.html
[3]
http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Father-and-son-reunited-after-custody-battle/m6JPjB8Wg06hNjZcoATQyA.cspx
[4]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Sandra-will-not-battle-for-Jesses-kids-/articleshow/5868052.cms
Jessie James Sandra Bullock divorce and adoption.
Our lives are a bumpy road with happiness being fleeting. Why do we do what we do on a give day. Sandra Bullock and Jessie James spent several years qualifying for adoption of a baby, out of site of the press. I bet they gave out a Yahoo when they were approved.
The baby adopted in January is African American. Bullock then wins award for nurturing another African American child in a movie. She found her base, Jessie James found several of his.
But the aftermath and their conduct Class in discretion of her part and class of responsibility acceptance on his part show them both to be greater than the events of scandal we all following with shallow motive.
I view them both as larger now. We can all take lesson on their role model of how to conduct oneself in a divorce. Children and privacy first.
FILING FOR DIVORCE
US Oscar- winning actor Sandra Bullock has filed for divorce to end her five-year marriage to Jesse James, she told People magazine in remarks published on its website yesterday.[1]
In Michigan the requirements of a divorce petition include.
Required provisions for divorce judgments.
All divorce judgments.
A determination of each party’s rights in insurance on the life of the other party.
A release of dower rights.
A determination of each party’s rights in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; contributions to a pension, annuity, or retirement plan; and contingent rights in unvested benefits.
The parties’ rights in property.
A provision granting, reserving, or denying spousal support.
If spousal support is no modifiable, a provision to that effect.
Divorces with minor children—additional required provisions.
A prohibition against moving the children’s residence outside Michigan or, in the case of a joint custody arrangement, a relocation agreement or mandated language prohibiting moving the children’s residence more than 100 miles away.
A requirement that the custodial parent promptly notify the Friend of the Court in writing of any change of the children’s address.
A statement by the court declaring the children’s inherent rights and establishing the rights and duties as to the children’s custody, support, and parenting time.
CHANGE IS SCARY
The Oscar-winning actress said in an interview published on People magazine's website that she had filed for divorce from Jesse James: "I'm sad and I am scared," she said[2]
ADOPTION AND DIVORCE
Sandra Bullock admitted yesterday that she and her now-estranged husband adopted a baby boy three months before she found out he was cheating on her.[2] The Child is 3½-month-old Louis Bardo Bullock, and she now planned to raise him as a single mother.[1]
The surprise, reported by People magazine, is the existence of an adoption in process. Bullock and James, 41, had planned to adopt Louis, a 3-month-old African-American baby from New Orleans. Bullock now plans to complete the adoption as a single parent, according to People.[3]
THE COUPLE TOOK HOME THE BABY IN JANURARY
Bullock and James took baby Louis Bardo Bullock home in January. [2]
JESSIE MANS UP
James, a custom motorcycle manufacturer and reality TV star, said last month that he took full responsibility for his actions, although he did not comment on allegations of an affair with a California tattoo model.[1]
DIVORCE DOES NOT HAVE TO STOP LOVE
Of her relationship with James's three children, Bullock said: "I don't want to know what life is like without those kids." [2]
JESSIE WILL BE INVITED TO BE PART OF THE BABYS LIFE
Looking ahead to life without James, Bullock said, "I really don't know how our paths will intersect in the future, but the father I have known Jesse to be with all the kids is one that I hope Louis can experience one day, no matter how Jesse and I go on with our lives." [2]
PROPERTY DIVISION
No protective order has been filed and the division of property, according to the petition, will focus on community ownership. Bullock, who holds property in several states and is perhaps Hollywood's most bankable female star, also owns several Austin businesses, including Bess Bistro on Pecan and Walton's Fancy and Staple. [3]
In Michigan In general, property and debts accumulated through the direct or indirect efforts of the parties during the marriage are marital. Neither party is inherently entitled to a greater share of the marital assets or responsible for a greater share of the marital debts. Separate property should be awarded to the owner spouse. These presumptions may be rebutted.
Mandatory Judgment Provisions
Property division must be discussed in the judgment of divorce in a separate paragraph prefaced by an appropriate heading. MCR 3.211(A). The judgment must address these property interests:
Property division. A division of the real and personal property brought to and acquired during the marriage as well as the parties’ debts. MCL 552.19, .23, .101, .103, .401; MCR 3.211(B)(3); Yeo v Yeo, 214 Mich App 598, 543 NW2d 62 (1995).
Insurance. A statement confirming that the divorce judgment terminates each spouse’s interest as a beneficiary in life insurance on the other spouse’s life or providing otherwise. MCL 552.101(2)–(3); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Dower. A statement that the divorce judgment satisfies the wife’s dower claims in the husband’s property. MCL 552.101(1); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Pension, annuity, and retirement benefits. A determination of the rights of both spouses in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits. MCL 552.101(4); MCR 3.211(B)(2).
A consent judgment of divorce provision releasing each party’s rights to the life insurance proceeds of the other party waives a party’s right to a late former spouse’s life insurance proceeds. Sweebe v Sweebe, 474 Mich 151, 712 NW2d 708 (2006); MacInnes v MacInnes, 260 Mich App 280, 677 NW2d 889 (2004).
A divorce or an annulment revokes a will provision naming the former spouse as a beneficiary unless the will specifically provides otherwise. MCL 700.2806–.2809.
JURISDICTION
The petition says she has lived in Texas for at least the previous six months and has been a resident of Travis County for at least 90 days. During much of that time, Bullock remained behind the walls of her Hollywood Hills residence, dodging a battery of paparazzi.[3]
[1]
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0429/1224269287258.html
[2]
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/article424118.ece/Single-parent-Bullock-loving-it
[3]
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_520444.html
Posts
All Comments
