Saturday, February 8, 2020


The issues are:
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.    (810) 235-1970

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Case: Grayer v. Grayer, unpublished 1/21/2020
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion )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

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Divorce Basics Jurisdiction.

Daily internet new from Flint MI USA

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 29, 2019

CHILD CUSTODY Presented By Terry Bankert Flint Family Law (810) 235-1970

HOW WILL A COURT MAKE A CHILD CUSTODY DECISION CONCERNING YOUR CHILDREN . Presented here by Flint Family Law Attorney Terry Bankert (810)-235-1970,


“Before any decision as to the custody of a child is made, the court must determine whether an established custodial environment exists. Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 197; 614 NW2d 696 (2000).”

 “The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).

 The trial court “shall not . . . issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.” MCL 722.27(1)(c).
[Source. E-journal UnPublished Michigan Court of Appeals, 9-11-02018 NO.341025] 

“ Here, the trial court determined that an established custodial environment existed with plaintiff and defendant does not challenge that finding on appeal. “

“Therefore, going forward, defendant had the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that modification of the established custodial environment was in the children’s best interests.”

 “To determine the best interests of the children in child custody cases, a trial court must consider all the factors delineated in [MCL 722.23] applying the proper burden of proof.” Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 9; 634 NW2d 363 (2001).”

“ A trial court’s findings with regard to each factor “should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Berger, 277 Mich App at 705.”

 “This Court will defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations, and the trial court has discretion to accord differing weight to the best-interest factors.” Id. -3- MCL 722.23 cites 12 factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court to decide a child’s best interests.”
“ (a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.
 (b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any. 
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
 (d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
 (e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes. (f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
 (g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
 (h) The home, school, and community record of the child. 
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.
 (j) 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 parent or the child and the parents. A court may not consider negatively for the purposes of this factor any reasonable action taken by a parent to protect a child or that parent from sexual assault or domestic violence by the child's other parent. 
(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child. (l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. [MCL 722.23].”

If you have additional questions feel free to make a no cost appointment. Terry Bankert Family Law Attorney Flint and Genesee County  (810) 235-1970)

Sphere: Related Content