Showing posts with label flint divorce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flint divorce. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

CHANGING CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT.

MAY A COURT AMEND A CUSTODY OR PARENTING TIME ORDER?
A trial court may modify or amend its previous judgments or orders, including those addressing custody or parenting-time issues, “for proper cause shown or because of a change of circumstances.” MCL 722.27(1)(c). Before doing so, a trial court “must first consider whether the proposed change would modify the established custodial environment.” Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 85; 782 NW2d 480 (2010). “
WHAT IS THE ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT.
“The established custodial environment is the environment in which over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” Id. (quotation marks omitted), citing MCL 722.27(1)(c). “
EXAMPLE OF WHEN THIS ENVIRONMENT NOT CHANGED.
“Whereas minor modifications that leave a party’s parenting time essentially intact do not change a child’s established custodial environment, significant changes do.” Lieberman, 319 Mich App at 89-90 (cleaned up). If parenting-time adjustments “will not change whom the child naturally looks to for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort, then the established custodial environment will not have changed.” Pierron, 486 Mich at 86. “
EVIDENCE NEED TO CHANGE CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT
“The trial court “shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or 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). “
“It is presumed to be in the best interests of a child for the child to have a strong relationship with both of his or her parents.” MCL 722.27a(1).”
“Whereas the primary concern in child custody determinations is the stability of the child’s environment and avoidance of unwarranted and disruptive custody changes, the focus of parenting time is to foster a strong relationship between the child and the child’s parents.” Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 28-29; 805 NW2d 1 (2010).” (Source, e-journal #70586, Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished 5/21/19, no.346025.)
Presented here by Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert Attorney practicing Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody, Parenting time, Support and other Family issues. 1-(810- 235-1970, www.attorneybankert.com No charge for initial appointment.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 6, 2014

CELEBRITY WOMEN WHO PAY GAL-IMONY by Terry Bankert Flint Divorce Attorney 810-235-1970



GAL-IMONY CELEBRITY WOMEN WHO PAY SUPPORT.[3]

Thank You Gloria Steinamn.

Halle Berry’s case and others mentioned here, Madonna  , Kirstie Alley and Britney Spears are not Michigan cases or from #Flint.

Genesee Flint Michigan law of spousal support is found here using the celebrity cases as a backdrop.

Halle Berry falls in line with a growing number of women who pay child support.[3]

"The law is gender neutral and support is the right of the child not the parent," said Jonathan Wolfe, an attorney and partner with Skoloff & Wolfe. "If you are the higher wage earner, man or woman, be prepared to pay."[4]

IN MICHIGAN,The court may award spousal support as is just and reasonable if the property award is insufficient for the suitable support of either party and any children of the marriage of whom the party has custody. The court must consider “the ability of either party to pay and the character and situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case.” MCL 552.23(1).[5]

A 2013 Pew report found that women are the sole or primary breadwinners in 40 percent of households with children under 18. [2]

Halle Berry  is now a ranking member of an exclusive club in Hollywood: celebrity women who've had to pay their exes after their split.[3]

More than half of divorce lawyers surveyed by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers cited an increase in the number of mothers assigned to make child support payments in the past five years.[4]

The long-lived child support battle between Halle Berry and ex-lover, Gabriel Aubrey, appears to be over—for now at least.[1]

According to People, the Academy Award-winning actress has been ordered to pay Gabriel $16,000 per month in child support for their daughter, Nahla, until she either turns 19 years old or finishes high school. That’s a pretty long time considering that Nahla is only six.[1]

The Oscar-winner will fork over $200,000 per year plus tuition money for the ex-couple’s six-year-old daughter Nahla. Berry must also make a retroactive payment of $115,000 and another $300,000 to Aubry’s attorneys to cover their fees.[2]

IN MICHIGAN, Factors to be considered  in awarding spousal support include the following:
  • Past relations and conduct of the parties. How the parties conducted the marriage as well as fault in the breakdown of the marriage. Fault is only one factor and should not be assigned disproportionate weight.
  • Length of the marriage. A long-term marriage is especially relevant where one spouse has no career or marketable skills and his or her standard of living may be reduced because of the divorce.
  • Ability of the parties to work.
  • Source of and amount of property awarded to the parties.The focus is on the income-earning potential of the assets rather than their value; a spouse is not required to dissipate property awarded to meet daily needs where spousal support can be available.
  • Ages of the parties.
  • Ability of the parties to pay spousal support. Sources considered in determining the ability to pay include earnings, pension plans, unemployment compensation, tax refunds, and Social Security benefits. Ability to pay includes the payer spouse’s unexercised ability to earn if income is voluntarily reduced to avoid paying spousal support. Factors relevant to the ability to pay include (1) the parties’ employment histories, (2) reasons for any termination of employment, (3) work opportunities available, (4) diligence in trying to find employment, and (5) availability of employment.
  • Present situation of the parties.
  • Needs of the parties.
  • Health of the parties. The parties’ health is relevant to the ability to work and to the personal needs of the spouse seeking support.
  • Prior standard of living of the parties.
  • Whether either party is responsible for the support of others.
  • General principles of equity.
The court must make findings on each factor relevant to the claim before it.[5]

Berry and Aubry have been locked in a bitter custody battle over their daughter, Nahla, since 2012, the same year a judge blocked the actress from moving with their daughter to France.[3]

Halle Berry’s... shocking ruling was delivered in a Los Angeles court room on May 30. ... Halle has also been ordered to pay Gabriel $300,000 in attorney’s fees. Court documents reveal that the two share equal custody of Nahla.[1]

IN MICHIGAN, Factors relevant to the amount of support.
  • duration of the marriage
  • the parties’ contribution to the joint estate
  • the parties’ ages
  • the parties’ health
  • the parties’ stations in life
  • the parties’ necessities and circumstances
  • the parties’ earning abilities


Halle and Gabriel’s co-parenting situation certainly has not been the most ideal over the past couple of years.[1]

[T]he former couple’s 2012 Thanksgiving was stained with memories of bloodshed and a prison cell after Gabriel got into a physical altercation with Halle’s now-husband, Olivier Martinez.[1]

Aubry, 38, and Berry, 47, dated from 2005 to 2010 but never married. In 2012, the couple became involved in a custody dispute over Nahla, when a judge blocked the X-Men: Days of Future Past star from moving their daughter to France to live with her and her now-husband Olivier Martinez. The fight culminated in a physical altercation between Aubry and Martinez in November of 2012, People reported. Aubry and Berry now share equal custody of the girl, according to court documents.[2]

Because the number of female breadwinners is at a peak and more men are asking for shared custody, cases of women paying child support are likely on the rise, too. A 2012 survey of divorce lawyers in the United States found that 56 percent of attorneys saw an increase in numbers paying child support since 2009.[2]

"Courts look at income from all sources, such as earned income and income earned from their assets," Wolfe told MainStreet. "When fixing the rate of return for unearned income, courts will be guided by the actual historical returns or impute a reasonable assumed rate of return."[4]

IN MICHIGAN TO DETERMINE HOW LONG SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULDLAST THE FOLLOWING IS USED.
Rehabilitative spousal support.
Rehabilitative spousal support is temporary spousal support to help the dependent spouse make the transition to self-support. It can be appropriate to
  • encourage a spouse to seek full-time employment and self-sufficiency
  • allow a spouse to complete an advanced degree or obtain a marketable skill when he or she had worked while the other spouse obtained a degree
  • allow a spouse to adjust to a lifestyle not based on combined incomes
  • allow a spouse to obtain new job skills and enter the workforce
Permanent spousal support (generally until death or remarriage).
It has been found appropriate when there is
  • a long-term marriage with a spouse who has no career or marketable skills
  • a long-term marriage, one spouse with superior earning skills, and the other spouse with questionable earning capacity
  • great discrepancy between incomes and a wife who devoted most of her adult life to homemaker role
  • serious doubt that a spouse could support himself or herself because of a disability[5]


Berry isn't the first female star to be on the hook for child support. [Others]... who had to pay big.[3]

MADONNA

The Material Girl's reported $76-$96 million settlement in 2008 with Guy Ritchie was considered a record payout, let alone one by a woman. Even her publicist, Liz Rosenberg, acknowledged its significance.[3]

ANNE HECHE

When the marriage broke up five years later, Laffoon sought at least $33,000 a month in spousal support and custody of Homer, claiming that Heche was a poor parent with "bizarre and delusional behavior," according to a court filing obtained by People magazine. [3]

KRISTIE ALLEY

In one filing,...Kristi Alley’s husband... Stevenson asked for "sufficient support" to "maintain a lifestyle commensurate to that which Kirstie and I had enjoyed during our marriage," including $18,000 a month to pay rent on a home in Bel Air.[3]

Though Stevenson once enjoyed the spotlight, he claimed that his earnings were only a fraction of what Alley earned and he did not expect to ever approach her income. Ultimately, he settled for a one-time payout of $6 million, according to Forbes.com.[3]

BRITNEY SPEARS

Federline was embroiled in a custody battle with Spears, who only had visitation rights to see their children. In 2008, she gave up her custody fight but gained more visiting time with the boys. At the same time, her child support payments to Federline reportedly increased by $5,000 to $20,000 a month.[3]

Spears was also on the hook for Federline's legal fees to the tune of nearly half a million dollars.[3]

What can these Ladies do now?

IN MICHIGAN THESE STARS COULD ASK TO HAVE THEIR SUPPORT MODIFIED. THE COURT WILL LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING.

Modification. §§6.43–6.51.

If the court had personal jurisdiction over the payer at the time of the judgment, the court has continuing jurisdiction to revise or amend the order.

No minimum period must elapse before modification can be requested.

Retroactive modification is not available. However, the court can approve the parties’ agreement for retroactive modification.

Modification is possible only on a showing of new facts or changed circumstances since the judgment that justify a revision. The petitioner has the burden of justifying a change by a preponderance of the evidence.

Once a change in circumstances is shown, the court considers all the circumstances in deciding what modification to make.[5]
Factors indicating a change in circumstances.
  • Remarriage—can trigger modification or termination unless specifically stated otherwise in the judgment, but remarriage can be only one consideration.
  • Cohabitation—does not constitute a de facto marriage; can be relevant where it improves a spouse’s financial position.
  • Changes in need—see examples in §6.48.
  • Changes in ability to pay—see examples in §6.49.
  • Retirement—effect appears to depend on whether parties fashioned award with retirement in mind; see examples in §6.50.
  • Death of the payer—does not terminate the support obligation, which can be enforced against the estate, unless stated otherwise.[5]



------------------


[1]
http://madamenoire.com/437039/halle-berry-pay-gabriel-aubrey-16000-per-month-child-support/
[2]
http://time.com/2853415/halle-berry-ordered-to-pay-almost-200k-per-year-in-child-support/

[3]

[4]

[5]
Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 6 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=6
(last updated 06/27/2014).

see

see

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 25, 2013

PERSONAL INJURY AND DIVORCE AWARDS-DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970

PERSONAL INJURY AND DIVORCE AWARDS-DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970

DID YOU KNOW;
www.attorneybankert.com
The question presented follows.
“It was a very serious accident, it happened in 2008. I stayed home from work for my 12 allotted weeks to care for him. I worked every day, 12 hrs a day to ensure we got could hold out till the settlement and not lose our house. We got the settlement and he decided he wants a divorce and refuses to give me any money even though he got enough that if he gave me 1/3 I would not have to work ever again. If I hadn't worked the way I did he would have never gotten that much. We have 2 children and he is verbally abusive to them and me. Am I entitled to anything?” The short answer is yes.

DID YOU KNOW;
www.goodmorningflint.blogspot.com
The presumption is the jurisdiction is Michigan and that the husband has to yet file for divorce. The wife should file for divorce or separate maintenance to stop dissipation of assets. The court will divide the assets as they exist on the date the judgment is entered or tried. A temporary order is used to preserve the assets. The wife is entitled to 50% of the joint assets and should be advised to file immediately

DID YOU KNOW;
www.terrybankert.blogspot.com
To reach an equitable division of marital property, a trial court should consider the duration of the marriage, the contribution of each party to the marital estate,each party’s station in life, each party’s earning ability, each party’s age, health and needs, fault or past misconduct, and any other equitable circumstance. McDougal, 451 Mich at 89; Sparks, 440 Mich at 158-160. [1]

DID YOU KNOW;
www.dumpmycreditors.wordpress.com
The determination of relevant factors will vary with the circumstances of each case, and no one factor should be given undue weight.[1]

DID YOU KNOW;
www.occupyflintlegal.wordpress.com

Generally, an award for pain and suffering is separate property, but it may be divisible as separate property on a proper showing of need or contribution. Lee v Lee, 191 Mich App 73, 477 NW2d 429 (1991) (accident settlement); see also Wilson v Wilson, 179 Mich App 519, 446 NW2d 496 (1989). However, a recipient could be ordered to pay spousal support based on his or her enhanced estate or income from investing an award for pain and suffering. Bywater v Bywater, 128 Mich App 396, 340 NW2d 102 (1983).[2]

DID YOU KNOW;
www.twitter.com/terrybankert
Generally, marital assets are subject to division between the parties but the parties’ separate assets may not be invaded. McNamara, 249 Mich App at 183. [1]


DID YOU KNOW;
www.facebook.com/attorneybankert
Stoudemire v Stoudemire, 248 Mich App 325, 639 NW2d 274 (2001), upheld the trial court’s finding that injured plaintiff’s pain and suffering award was his separate property, and that the lost wage portion of his award was marital property to be divided 50-50. The court relied on expert testimony to calculate what portion of the award was truly for economic damages.[2]

SOURCES
[1]
Woodington v Shokouhi, 288 Mich App 352, 792 NW2d 63, published 5/4/10

[2]
Michigan Family Law Benchbook ch 8 (ICLE 2d ed 2006), at http://www.icle.org/modules/books/chapter.aspx?lib=family&book=2006553550&chapter=08 (last updated 02/15/2013)

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

" I have one question for political leaders, when will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby?"[1]

GOOD MORNING FLINT! date 1/9/13.GUN CONTROL IS COMING. THANK GOD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57562795-10391739/biden-to-meet-with-nra/

Children are dying in the streets and in the school because we drank the Kool Aide of the gun industry. The " Responsible Gun Owners " ,when the NRA is neutered ,will lead the way to responsible gun reform.[trb]

"I have one question for political leaders, when will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby? Whose child has to die next?" [1]

-----
By Terry R. Bankert [trb] terry@attorneybankert.com
www.attorneybankert.com , https://www.facebook.com/attorneybankert, Flint Divorce & Bankruptcy 810-235-1970

...Vice President Biden is scheduled to meet Wednesday with victims groups and gun-safety organizations....The meeting is to be part of a series of gatherings Biden is conducting this week at the White House aimed at building a consensus around proposals to curb gun violence following the horrific elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.[1]


It appears that the Republicans have been very effective in giving human qualities to inanimate objects. Corporations are labeled as people and given the right to contribute to political campaigns and manipulate national politics. We should follow this lead and assign legal human like responsibilities to an inanimate object that kills indiscriminately women,children,the elderly and the rest of us. Guns are killers. Guns must be removed from our common areas. Guns protectors like the NRA and other Gun coddlers are nothing more than co-conspirators to murder. Enough is enough. Bear all your arms in your home or in other highly regulated ways.Guns should be treated like any other serial killer. Guns do kill.[trb]

President Obama has indicated that he wants Congress to reestablish the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004, and limit the size of magazines and expand background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed sellers to sidestep checks.The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.[1]

Biden has also been conferring with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is a vocal advocate for gun regulation. His group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, launched a TV ad Tuesday to pressure lawmakers to "stand up to the gun lobby."[1]

Giffords — came as the former congresswoman and her husband announced that they are forming a political action committee aimed at curbing gun violence. [2]

Giffords and Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, wrote in an op-ed published in USA Today that their Americans for Responsible Solutions initiative will raise money to support greater gun control efforts and take on the powerful gun lobby. [2]

“Achieving reforms to reduce gun violence and prevent mass shootings will mean matching gun lobbyists in their reach and resources,” the couple wrote, and they will “raise funds necessary to balance the influence of the gun lobby.”[2]


I predict at the end of the day after the positioning of responsible gun owners and those of us tired of being slaughtered law enforcement will be given more tools and non responsible gun possessors will face new sanctions. [trb]

One of the issues sure to come up in the Biden group's discussions is the role of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[3]

The ATF is the primary enforcer of the nation's gun laws, but advocates and former ATF officials say the agency has been underfunded, understaffed and handcuffed in its abilities to go after gun crimes.[3]

I suggest

1.law enforcement will be allowed to profile vehicles to search for weapons and seize same. No open carry in a vehicle.[trb]

2. Illegally transport a weapon and the weapon is forfeited owner driver or passenge[trb]r.


3. Give police authority to search your home for ammunition and any weapon in it if an illegally transported gun is seized from a vehicle you are in or you own the vehicle.[trb]

4.Tax ammunition. If a bullet cost $5,000.00 gun violence would go down.(name the stand up comedian)[trb]

5.Make Flnt a very expensive city to transport a weapon illegally.[trb]

6. Politically take on the NRA. [trb]

Standing up to the gun lobby is seen by gun control advocates to mean not only banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but restoring some teeth to the ATF.[3]

When gun safety advocates refer to the gun lobby, there are numerous organizations that promote less gun regulation, but the most powerful is the National Rifle Association, which has spent nearly $10 million since President Obama's inauguration on lobbying activity, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That number doesn't include the more than $30 million the NRA's political action committee and the organization's affiliated political nonprofits spent to influence the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.[1]

The NRA has proposed placing armed guards in schools to clamp down on shootings. It's a proposal the president has rejected.[1]

A Face book friend said:James L. Smith And the responsible gun reform will lead to what? I'm not a gun owner or supporter, but I do know this. People who own guns responsibly already comply with the myriad of existing gun laws. Those that use guns illegally will not turn in their guns or respond to any other "responsible gun laws." It's like spanking all your children because you can't determine which one committed the offense. Sounds good, accomplishes nothing. What really needs to happen is that we address the issues of mental health and finally determine to house and treat people with mental illness. That will do more than any legislation about guns. But maybe lawyers want more laws so they will have more people to defend in court. I'm all for anything that will stop the violence, but when I see these knee jerk solutions they make no sense. I'm open to be changed.

We need an intense focused national debate on the issue of Gun Control.[trb]

-----
[source]
[trb] & CAP’S
Terry Bankert
[1]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57562942/bidens-meetings-spotlight-gun-control-divide/

[2]
http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/01/09/giffords-kelly-launch-gun-control-lobbying-effort/ZCMZlyQYtxTkwr5RMofykL/story.html
[3]
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889491/gun-control-advocates-say-atfs-hands-have-been-tied

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

WHAT IS A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT IN A FLINT DIVORCE?, 235-1970 by Terry Bankert

WHAT IS A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert 235-1970




1.Child Custody; Whether the Crawford Circuit Court trial court properly determined that there was an established custodial environment (ECE) with only defendant; Berger v. Berger; Kessler v. Kessler;

2.Claim that the trial court erred by not making the “proper cause or change in circumstances” determination as required by MCL 722.27(1)(c) before moving on with the Child Custody determination;

3. Waiver; Sherry v. East Suburban Football League; City of Plymouth v. McIntosh; Whether the trial court’s findings for three of the best-interest factors (b, c, and d) were against the great weight of the evidence; Pierron v. Pierron; The Child Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Harvey v. Harvey; Fletcher v. Fletcher

This opinion presented here with m,odification by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert 810-235-1970 http://www.atorneybankert.com

CASE REVIEWED

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished) November 29, 2012

v No. 311483

Lower trial court :Crawford Circuit Court LC No. 2009-007883-DP

Case Name: Howard v. Dohring

e-Journal Number: 53365

Judge(s): Per Curiam – Borrello, Fitzgerald, and Owens

The Michigan Appeals court held, inter alia, that based on its review of the record, the Crawford Circuit Court trial court’s determination of an ECE with only the defendant-mother was accurate and its findings were thoroughly supported by the evidence presented.







Recently the Michigan Appeals court affirmed the order , of the Crawford Circuit Court granting primary full physical Child Custody to defendant. mother.

The plaintiff-father had argued that the trial court erred in determining that there was an Established Custodial Environment , for short called ECE, with only defendant mother.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court offered a very detailed explanation of its determination that there was no ECE with plaintiff at the time it made its decision.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court explained that although plaintiff may have had an ECE at one time, his actions eroded that environment.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court also determined that “[r]egardless of how much [plaintiff] was present, . . . when he was present, others were providing the overwhelming amount of care for the minor child.”

There was evidence presented that Father plaintiff was not the individual providing care for the child and that Father plaintiff missed parenting time.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court was in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and the evidence presented supported its decision that plaintiff was not the parent that over “an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.”

THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS review of the case background.

Father Plaintiff appeals as of right from the July 10, 2012 order granting primary full physical

custody to defendant. For the reasons set forth in this opinion ,The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.

This appeal arises from a dispute between plaintiff and defendant who have a minor child

together but were never married. The parties entered into a consent order for custody, parenting

time, and child support where the parties had joint physical and legal custody in a week on/week

off arrangement.

In May 2011, as the result of an apparent agreement between the parties, an

order was filed to change custody so that defendant had sole physical and legal custody and

plaintiff had parenting time on alternating weekends.

However, plaintiff later moved to reverse the order, asserting that he was coerced into signing the agreement.

Plaintiff’s motion was denied by the referee on September 20, 2011, and plaintiff objected to the referee’s determination.

The trial court reversed the referee, vacated the May 2011 custody order, and

remanded to the referee for evaluation of an established custodial environment and the bestinterest

factors.

The referee determined that there was an established custodial environment with

only defendant.

The referee also made findings for each of the best-interest factors and

determined that it was in the child’s best interests to be with defendant and recommended

granting full physical custody to defendant.

Plaintiff objected to the referee’s findings and

recommended order and the trial court conducted a de novo review.

After the de novo review the trial court determined that there was an established custodial environment with defendant and not plaintiff.

The trial court also determined that sole physical custody with defendant was in the

best interests of the minor child. This appeal ensued.

-

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Crawford Circuit Court trial court erred by not making the proper cause or change in circumstances determination as required by MCL 722.27(1)(c) before moving on with the custody determination.

Father- Plaintiff cannot now assert that the Crawford Circuit Court trial

court failed to find proper cause or a change in circumstances because Father – plaintiff agreed the

necessary determination had been made.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held this issue was waived and therefore is not

subject to review. Waiver is the knowing or voluntary abandonment of a known right.

Sherry v East Suburban Football League , 292 Mich App 23, 33; 807 NW2d 859 (2011). Once an issue has been waived it cannot then be raised as an error on appeal.

City of Plymouth v McIntosh, 291 Mich App 152, 164; 804 NW2d 859 (2010). Moreover, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion on appeal, the trial court did find a change of circumstances in order to justify reviewing custody, based upon



A. the child’s attaining school age and



B. plaintiff’s lack of ability or willingness to help

the child attend school.

Father -Plaintiff does not challenge the adequacy of the Crawford Circuit Court trial court’s proper

cause or change in circumstances determination and therefore we will not review it.

Next, father- plaintiff argues that the Crawford Circuit Court trial court erred in determining that there was an established custodial environment with only defendant. Determining the existence of an established custodial environment is a question of fact. Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700,

706; 747 NW2d 336 (2008).

A Crawford Circuit Court trial court is required to make a determination of whether an established custodial environment exists with one or both parents

before making any custody decisions. Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 61; 811 NW2d 39

(2011).

WHAT IS A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT?



A. PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS



The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for



1.guidance,



2.discipline,



3.The necessities of life,



4. and parental comfort.



B. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS



1.The age of the child,



2. the physical environment,



3.and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency

of the relationship shall also be considered. . . . MCL 722.27(1)(c).

A Crawford Circuit Court trial court can determine that an established custodial environment exists in multiple homes. Berger , 277 Mich App at 706-707.

THE CRAWFORD CIRCUIT COURT DID IT’S JOB.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court offered a very detailed explanation of its determination that there was no established custodial environment with plaintiff at the time it made its decision. The trial court explained that although plaintiff may have had an established custodial environment at one time, plaintiff’s actions eroded that environment.

THE STRESS OF TRIAL CAN DESTROY THE CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT

See Bowers v Bowers (After Remand), 198 Mich App 320, 326; 497 NW2d 602 (1993)

1.“where there are repeated changes in physical custody

2. and uncertainty created by an upcoming custody trial,

3. a previously established custodial environment is destroyed. . . .”)

JUST BEING PRESENT FOR FATHERS IS NOT ALWAYS ENOUGH

The Crawford Circuit Court Trial court also determined that ;

.“[r]egardless of how much [plaintiff] was present, . . . when he was present, others were providing the overwhelming amount of care for the minor child.”



1. There was evidence presented that plaintiff was not the individual providingcare for the child and



2. that plaintiff would miss parenting time.

The Crawford Circuit Court found FATHER plaintiff was not the parent that over “an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.”

Berger, 277 Mich App at 706-707; MCL 722.27(1)(c).

[T]he Crawford Circuit Court trial court determination of established custodial environment was accurate and its findings thoroughly supported by the evidence presented.

Father – plaintiff argues that the trial court’s findings for three of the best-interest factors

were against the great weight of the evidence.

The Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., promotes the best interests of the child and

is used to govern custody disputes. Harvey v Harvey, 470 Mich 186, 192; 680 NW2d 835

(2004).

Based on the act, the trial court is obligated to consider the best-interest factors laid out

in MCL 722.23 when resolving custody disputes:



(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.

(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 particularchild custody dispute.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court’s failure to discuss every piece of evidence does not suggest that any evidence was overlooked.

FATHERS ARGUMENT

Plaintiff argues that the trial court’s findings for factor (b) were in error because;



1. plaintiff has been involved in the child’s life while



2. defendant exposes the child to dangerous individuals.

While there was testimony that defendant’s friends and relatives have criminal records, her

testimony was that ;

1. the child had not been exposed to some of these people,

2. and as to the others, would never be left alone in their company.

The Crawford Circuit Court trial court then went on to discuss the guidance and

education component of this factor.



The Crawford Circuit Court trial court found this favored defendant because

1. defendant was concerned with the minor child getting social interaction, and

2. plaintiff disregarded the school schedule in favor of visitation.

3. plaintiff “decided to take actions that interfered with the

educational pursuits for the child.”

4. plaintiff intentionally withheld the child from pre-school, claiming that it interfered with his parenting time



5. and he was unable to drive the minor to school because he does not possess a driver’s license.

Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in determining factor (c) because plaintiff is

able to provide for his son through work, his family, or his college fund, while defendant made

only minimum wage.

However, the trial court heard testimony that

1. plaintiff was unemployed and

2. did not appear to be seeking employment.

3. Instead, plaintiff relied on his mother, his girlfriend, and his college fund for financial support.

The trial court did not err in determining that defendant’s employment made her better suited to provide for the minor child’s needs.

Plaintiff’s reliance on others to provide for the minor child “is not exactly a sustainable long term

plan to provide for a minor child.” The trial court’s determination was not against the great

weight of the evidence.

Father plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in its determination of factor (d) because

1. the minor child has had a stable environment with plaintiff in plaintiff’s mother’s home.

2. The trial court determined that

a. “Both parties have moved a fair amount over the last three years. So,

b. neither has provided a truly stable environment.”

c. There was evidence that defendant had moved four times in the past three years.

d. But there was also evidence that plaintiff had lived in several

other places and was living with his moth er between homes.

The trial court addressed plaintiff’s residence in factor (e) and said

1., “Looking at the record as a whole, the home of the Grandmother

is a good place for the minor child but

2. does not necessarily appear at various times in this case to

be the residence of the Plaintiff.”

3. The trial court appeared to acknowledge that although

plaintiff’s mother’s house was a good environment for the minor child, it was not plaintiff’s residence at all times.

4. Additionally, the trial court was making determinations on plaintiff and

defendant, not plaintiff’s mother, plaintiff, and defendant.

Affirmed. Defendant having prevailed may access costs. MCR 7.219.



/s/ Stephen L. Borrello

/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald

/s/ Donald S. Owens

Sphere: Related Content