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Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished July 27 2010)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

CHILD CUSTODY: Sandra Bullock, Jessie James, Jon Kate Gosslin Child Custody and Court Opinion

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

Sphere: Related Content