Unfounded CPS Complaints Lead to Loss of Custody

We have seen this movie at our law firm on a few occasions.  A maladjusted parent attempts to enlist the machinery of the state in a bid to gain custody by making false or trumped-up allegations of abuse against the other spouse or co-parent.

Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a St. Clair County Family Court judgment that awarded Father sole legal custody and limited Mother's parenting schedule to minimal supervised sessions largely on the basis of Mother's series of unsupported allegations of abuse and neglect made to CPS.

These unfounded allegations of abuse and neglect, combined with Mother's overall campaign of alienation against Father, left Mother with only two hours of supervised parenting time.  While it appears she brought this on by her own actions, we never like to see a parent stuck with such limited parenting time.

In this case, however, Mother was her own worst enemy.  The trial testimony not only featured credible evidence of parental alienation and unfounded CPS complaints, Mother also subjected the children to multiple forensic interviews, while she violated the family court's temporary parenting orders; a recipe for disaster to be sure.

Additionally, to make matters even worse for the children, Mother assaulted Father on several occasions, sometimes in front of these poor children.  As a result, the older child now has issues of his own and Mother is "overwhelmed" by her son's issues.

From a professional perspective, we note here at our law firm that the trial court's decision was deemed to be well-reasoned and supported by applicable authority.  With regard to the appellant-Mother's challenge to her limited parenting time, the Court of Appeals stated:

Other than to argue that she was justified in reporting the issues to CPS and that she loved and cared for the children, defendant has done little by way of argument to demonstrate that the trial court erred in determining parenting time.  Trial evidence supported the factors mitigating against greater parenting time, and the trial court’s findings with respect to parenting time were not against the great weight of the evidence.  Importantly, defendant has not been removed from the children’s lives as she has weekly parenting time, and the trial court’s order –as it must- left open the possibility that she can be granted more time in the future.

So the Mother in this unfortunate case will need to earn herself a spot back into the lives of her children.  Thus, she would be well-advised to start playing by the rules: i.e. following the court orders issued in her divorce case.

The simple lesson here is, even when your adult relationship has deteriorated to the point of divorce, you must make every attempt to co-parent with the person with whom you procreated for the sake of the children.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Senate Bill Prevents Lawyers From Soliciting in Newly Filed Divorces

We lawyers are not supposed to be soliciting anyway, as it is expressly prohibited in the Rules of Professional Conduct.  But over the years, a small group of divorce lawyers, unable to get clients any other way, send solicitation letters to people with the misfortune of having their spouse file for divorce.

The practice is the divorce equivalent of ambulance chasing.  Now, the Michigan Senate has taken action with SB 981, a bill sponsored by Senator Rick Jones [R-Grand Ledge], which seeks to prohibit lawyers from contacting a person or family member involved in a divorce filing until 14-days after that person is officially served with the divorce papers.

Our law firm has experienced this divorce solicitation practice first hand: we are retained by a client to commence and prosecute a divorce proceeding, we file the complaint with the county clerk, and before we can even get the other party served, BAM; a solicitation letter hits the mailbox and all Hell [potentially] breaks loose.

The primary concern among the divorce professionals who support the legislation is that, in cases of domestic violence, the spouse who filed for divorce needs time to seek a personal protection order.  They also point to inflammatory language often contained in the solicitation letters as well as their effect of casting general derision upon our once-great profession as a whole.

At hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, lawyers opposing the measure indicated that the bill would have unintended consequences: a first offense is a misdemeanor carrying a fine of $1000; repeat offenders could do up to a year in jail and face a $5000 fine.  Opponents of the bill also point out First Amendment considerations and argue that family law is a complex industry in which advertising is necessarily involved.

The State Bar of Michigan's Family Law Section has long-championed this type of prohibition, relying mostly on the domestic violence argument.  The Section attempted to get the applicable court rules on service of process changed -something handled by the Michigan Supreme Court rather than the legislature- but the MSC declined on the basis that no empirical data was presented in support of such a procedural rule change.

When we are hired to file a complaint for divorce in the family court, we always advise our client that the new law suit is not a well kept secret.  We inform our clients that: a) trolling lawyers are out there, and they will solicit the business of their spouse; b) within a day or two, the filing is reflected on the county clerk's court records on the Internet; and c) new case filings are contemporaneously published in the local legal newspaper.

Unfortunately, it must be noted that our state legislature sometimes does find it necessary to regulate the practice of law in Michigan via criminal statutes.  For example, ambulance chasing in personal injury cases is prohibited for 30-days after the date of the accident.

As much as we support legislation designed to curb or limit domestic violence, we here at this blog believe that SB 981, as proposed, may suffer from constitutional defects.  First, the measure interferes with a lawyer's important First Amendment freedoms, however distasteful the message.  Also, as drafted, the measure seems overbroad, criminalizing conduct not targeted by the legislation and having an overall chilling effect on otherwise legal activities.

If you or a family member are in need of legal advice in the family law area, contact our law firm for a free consultation.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Active Military Duty Mom Loses Custody via Court of Appeals

Here is a tough choice: to serve your country through military service, or to continue being the primary care provider for your preschooler.  That is the decision a Wayne County mother had to make recently as she contemplated her options in family court.

In 2007, the Child Custody Act was amended by our state legislature to protect active military parents.  The amendment to the statute states in relevant part:

If a motion for a change of custody is filed during the time a parent is on active military duty, the court shall not enter an order modifying or amending a previous judgment or order, or issue a new order, that changes the child's placement that existed on the date the parent was called to active military duty, except the court may enter a temporary custody order if there is clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.

In the Wayne County case, father filed a motion to change custody in response to mother's intent to change her domicile to another state; the state where she would eventually begin her deployment with the U.S. Army.

Hearings were conducted in the Wayne County Family Court which resulted in the family court judge ruling that father should have "temporary physical placement"; a new phrase in our custody parlance.  Apparently, the Court of Appeals agreed, finding in Kubicki v Sharpe that the dispute hinged on precisely when Mother's "active duty" commenced.

Does "active duty" mean: upon enlistment; upon commencement of basic training; or upon deployment?  The intermediate appellate court took a pass on deciding the meaning of this term in the Child Custody Act by ruling that father's custody motion was filed prior to mother's enlistment.

We here at this blog think it a shame that this decision was not made with better clarity.  An excellent opportunity was lost that could have provided some much needed certainty for those willing to serve our country through the military.

Clear as mud, the Court of Appeals took the opportunity to remand the case back to Detroit so that the family court judge could ascertain the child's reasonable preference.

Collateral note: the case is also instructive for language that the moral fitness of the parties, a custody factor in the Child Custody Act, does not include the moral fitness of one of the parties spouses, in this case, mother's husband who was recently convicted of domestic assault against the mother.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Family Court Judge Did Not Violate Teenager's Constitutional Rights Excluding Her From Parents' Custody Hearing

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

This is a case with an important message from the Ohio Supreme Court.  Thus, while the In Re AG opinion, released yesterday, does not bind family courts here in Michigan, it is nevertheless instructive.

Since 2001, the teenager, A.G., grew up amid perpetual family court divorce proceedings in both Henry and Ottawa Counties in Northern Ohio.  At one point or other, each parent had custody of A.G.  During these various post-judgment custody battles, each  parent sought to sever all contact with A.G. by the other parent by taking the child out of state.  Pitched battles to be sure.

The entire mess came to a head in 2009 when a custody trial was scheduled to take place in Ottawa County Family Court.  Apparently, by that time, Father's parenting time was supervised; he was seeking unsupervised parenting time.  His then 13-year old daughter moved the family court to terminate all parenting time with her Father and for the right to attend the scheduled hearing to decide these issues.

The family court judge interviewed the teen in chambers in order to ascertain her "reasonable preference" regarding custody and parenting time, as we do here in the Michigan family courts.  But the judge denied the teenager's request to attend the trial.

A.G.'s appeal to Ohio's intermediate appellate court affirmed the family court judge's decision, as did the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday's opinion.  The Ohio High Court ruled that while a minor child has an interest in the ongoing divorce proceedings of her parents, she is not a party litigant with attendant rights to be present for all proceedings.

The Ohio Supreme Court also ruled that a family court judge has the discretion to exclude a minor child from the custody proceedings of her parents and that this exclusion does not violate the child's Due Process rights.

Over here at the electronic divorce attorney, we believe this is the correct decision.  One of our recent divorce trials lasted 10-days and featured the testimony of one of the parties' adult sons.

While a child may [rarely] be called as a witness to testify, they are sequestered from the proceedings.  There is no good reason for a minor child, however, to witness the mud and dirty laundry flung about the courtroom in an ugly divorce proceeding sponsored by her parents.

We hope the family court judges here in Michigan take note of this well reasoned opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Lawyers Should Not Interview Children in Custody Disputes

Even the thought of some of our colleagues, cornering the little children of their clients in a conference room in order to elicit a parental preference, causes recurring nightmares.  Fortunately, the Michigan Court of Appeals agrees, recently holding that a family court judge cannot order the parents' lawyers to interview their minor children to ascertain their preference among their parents.

Divorce at its ugliest; an old-fashioned custody dispute.  According to the Child Custody Act, the family court must consider all 11 enumerated factors in deciding which parent has custody.  One of the factors is the reasonable preference of the child.

In the Donohue v Donohue case, the Court of Appeals noted that the applicable court rule only provides for family court professionals to conduct such interviews.  The 3-judge appellate panel's opinion stated, "these interviews are meant to be confidential exchanges between the court and the child."

In this case, an Ingham County family court judge grossly misinterpreted the applicable statute and court rule.  Forcing a child to state her preference in an interview with her parents' respective advocates is wrong in the worst kind of way.  No child should have to deal with his or her parents' lawyer.

The intermediate appellate court recognized the potential for influence peddling and the exacerbation of emotional turmoil.  Here at this blog, we saw this case as a "no brainer".  Parental advocates should not be used to determine a child's reasonable preference.

Some tasks, particularly those assigned to the judiciary by the legislature, cannot be delegated to the attorneys.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Bi-Coastal Custody Battle Examines Rights of Pregnant Women

Gold medalist Bode Miller

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

The photo at left notwithstanding, Bode Miller has picked-up several Olympic skiing medals in both Salt Lake City and Vancouver over the past decade; he is currently training for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Japan.  As a result, he is one of the few household names in men's downhill skiing.

Now he also is becoming known for a bi-coastal custody case involving a woman he briefly dated, and impregnated, from the match-making site for wealthy super-stars: Kelleher International.  This morning, he is scheduled to appear in the Manhattan Family Court for proceedings to establish temporary custody of his 9-month old son.

As happens so often, the mother of the child, Sara McKenna, became disillusioned with the father shortly after announcing her pregnancy, moving from San Diego to New York City to attend Colombia University on the GI Bill [she is a U.S. Marine].  Miller hired lawyers and sued in the Manhattan Family Court to have McKenna return with the couple's then-fetus, to San Diego where he maintains a residence.

In a surprising ruling last June, a Manhattan Family Court Referee issued a decision impugning the mother's conduct, accusing her of appropriation of the fetus [an inchoate form of parental kidnapping], and of forum shopping.  The Referee's preliminary ruling determined that McKenna's conduct was sufficiently "reprehensible" to justify a departure from New York law and ordered the infant returned to San Diego even though the child's "home state" is New York by virtue of the fact that he was born in NYC.

Bode Miller turned-up in the Big Apple last September, with his new wife in tow, to snatch the baby from the arms of a highly distraught McKenna.  This caught the attention of some of Manhattan's high-powered family law attorneys and an appeal was lodged with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division.

In reversing the Family Court Referee, the appellate court held that a custody case cannot be filed prior to birth, as was done by father's attorneys.  The appellate ruling held that McKenna's relocation to NYC during her pregnancy was not relevant to the determination of the infant's "home state" under the applicable New York law.

The appellate ruling has implications that protect the constitutional rights of pregnant women to move about the country, despite being pregnant.  Putative fathers cannot restrict the constitutional liberties of the women whom they impregnate according to this important decision.

This custody case was remanded back to the Manhattan Family Court and is scheduled for a hearing this morning on the issue of temporary custody.

Sometimes, parents feel they are victims to the subjective rulings of family court professionals: the judge, the referee, or the family counselor of the Friend of the Court.  Whenever you face custody proceedings in a family court, it is best to secure representation from a lawyer that has experience in dealing with the professionals in that court.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Grandparents Lack Standing When Parental Rights Are Terminated

By: Amanda Chapman

A recent 2-1 Michigan Court of Appeals decision published earlier this month, Porter v Hill, ruled that when a “natural” parent’s rights to their child are terminated, the grandparents rights are terminated along with the parents.  This ruling seems to conflict with the Child Custody Act.

The heart of this controversial ruling centers on the definition, or lack thereof, of “natural” parent vs “legal” parent.  At least for now, grandparents are out-of-luck, and this ruling will inflict some pain on select families.

In the Porter case, the bio-Mom and Dad were married with two children.  Mr. Porter’s parental rights to the children were involuntarily terminated as a result of physical abuse.  The parties were subsequently divorced.  Mr. Porter passed away, and his parents (the children’s paternal biological grandparents) then filed suit in Saginaw Circuit Court for grandparenting time with their grandchildren. 

Mother filed a motion for summary disposition, attempting to keep her ex-husband’s parents from establishing rights with her children.  Mother’s legal theory was that the grandparents did not have standing, or a legal cause of action under these facts. 

Mother’s dispositive motion asserted that when father’s parental rights were terminated that, in turn, meant that any rights grandparents may have had under the grandparenting provisions of the Child Custody Act had been severed as well.  The trial court reluctantly granted mother’s motion for summary disposition, openly acknowledging this case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. 

   

It is important to note that no determinations have been made, either in the trial court or the appellate court, as to the relative fitness of the Plaintiff-Grandparents, or whether granting grandparenting time would be in the best interests of the children.

A summary disposition motion is a dispositive motion that attempts to dismiss the case before it proceeds through discover and onward to trial.  The only question considered in this instance was whether the grandparents had a legal cause of action (otherwise known as “standing”) to bring the case in the first place.

Michigan’s Child Custody Act includes a section pertaining to grandparenting time which provides that

[a] child’s grandparent may seek a grandparenting time order under 1 or more of the following circumstances:…  (c) The child’s parent who is a child of the grandparents is deceased.

The statute defines “parent” as “the natural or adoptive parent of a child.”  “Grandparent” is defined as “a natural or adoptive parent of the child’s natural or adoptive parent.  

The Court of Appeals affirmed the family court’s decision, holding:

Russell was not a legal parent of the children…  Plaintiffs, as Russell’s parents, derived their rights as grandparents through him. 

The court further stated that

it would be anomalous for the Legislature to authorize a court to terminate a person’s parental rights based on abuse but then to somehow “revive” those rights for purposes of grandparent visitation.

Interestingly, Judge Mark Boonstra authored a dissenting opinion.  First, Judge Boonstra noted that:

[T]he Legislature’s use of the phrase natural parent and its affording to a grandparent of a right to seek grandparenting time independent of parental rights and notwithstanding parental desires…indicate both the plaintiffs …substantial interest in this case and that the statutory scheme at least implies that the Legislature intended to confer standing on the plaintiffs.

Next, Judge Boonstra pointed out that the statute:

permits a ‘natural parent’ of a ‘natural parent’ to seek grandparenting time…and there is no dispute here that plaintiffs were the ‘natural parents’ of Russell. The only question before us, therefore, is whether Russell was a ‘natural parent’ of the minor children.

The dissent further goes on to elucidate the fact that the Child Custody Act does not provide a definition for natural parent.  The words of a statute provide the most reliable indicator of the Legislature’s intent and should be interpreted on the basis of their ordinary meaning and context in which they are used.   An undefined statutory word must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning…    

In Porter, the grandparents argued that natural parent should be interpreted as equivalent to biological parent.  The dissenting opinion supports this interpretation on the basis of the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “natural” according to the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1991) which defines it as “related by blood rather than by adoption.”  Further, the dissent goes on the use Black’s Law Dictionary (9^th ed) definition of “natural” as “relating to birth” as in a “natural child as distinguished from [an] adopted child.”

The majority opinion based their ruling on equating a natural parent to be the equivalent of a legal parent.   Yet, the dissent astutely pointed out that the basis of such a determination does not coincide with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word term “natural,” and in fact the term is much more in-line as being similar to plaintiffs’ proffered “biological” term.  The dissent contends that “natural parent must connote something more and different than simply having “legal” parental rights.”

Some local family law lawyers have opined that the majority of the Court of Appeals got this one dead wrong.  For now, however, the majority decision stands.

In its decision, the intermediate appellate court asks the Legislature to clarify their intended meaning of the term natural parent; let's not hold our breath.    

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Sex Change Does Not Invalidate Divorce

Of course, this case comes to us from Ann Arbor.  Last month, the Court of Appeals decided a divorce case involving gender reassignment in a published decision.

In the case of In re Estate of Burnett, a couple had been married when Husband underwent gender reassignment surgery and became a woman in 2003.  His Wife, who had apparently supported the M-T-F gender change, subsequently became incapacitated.  Her children obtained a guardianship and conservatorship over their mother due to her dementia and filed for divorce on her behalf.

Doing some forum shopping, Wife's children, as her guardians, first tried to file the divorce proceeding in Pennsylvania but they were rebuffed.  Although the couple was married in Ann Arbor in the mid-1980s, they had lived in Philadelphia until Wife returned to her daughter's home in Washtenaw County back in 2006.

Defendant-Husband argued before the Washtenaw Family Court that his gender reassignment rendered the marriage invalid as between a same-sex couple; Michigan outlawed same-sex marriages in 2004 by an amendment to our constitution.  Husband also tried to get the divorce proceeding thrown-out on the grounds that a fiduciary could not file for divorce on behalf of a ward.

The family court judge denied both motions for summary disposition, ruling that the couple had entered into a valid marriage contract back in the 1980s, not a same-sex marriage contract.  The Court of Appeals upheld the decision, stating:

We likewise reject Defendant's argument that his alleged post-operative status somehow magically dissolves what was otherwise a valid marriage.

Nor did the Court of Appeals see grounds for an annulment of the Burnett marriage.  Simply, Husband, even though now a woman through surgery, is out of luck.

In the meantime, Wife has since passed away so the case now has merely symbolic and precedential value.  Even if the United States Supreme Court were to recognize same-sex marriages this spring as a component to our constitutional rights to privacy and liberty, the result in this case would be the same.  As noted by the Court of Appeals, the unilateral acts of one spouse cannot render a valid marriage invalid.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

The Intersection of Family and Criminal Law

Oscar Pistorius faces a judge at a bail hearing.

We have only to look to the recent and utterly tragic Oscar Pistorius premeditated murder case to know that sometimes our emotions get the best of us when it comes to love and romance.  While we are in no way convicting Mr. Pistorius before his day in court, it is simply a very sad reminder that domestic violence exists in more homes than anyone cares to admit.

Particularly in these trying times, the highly emotional process of divorce has a tendency to bring out the worst in the best among us.  We are all human; thus imperfect.

Divorce is unpleasant for everyone involved even on a good day.  Unfortunately, family law matters have the potential to devolve into a criminal case.

Professionals in the family law community must be vigilant in observing and recognizing signs of potential domestic abuse situations.  When signs of abuse are manifest, there is an opportunity to connect the potential victim to local resources to defuse a difficult and potentially dangerous situation.  The best results occur when an inchoate threat is avoided by proper counseling, resource sharing, and planning.

For the family law bar, it is also important to counsel clients to “keep their cool” while undergoing the tumult of a divorce.  At times clients feel like they can garner a tactical advantage by reporting a spouse’s behavior to law enforcement.  Sometimes this occurs in the heat of a custody battle; one parent thinks that repeated Child Protective Service calls will help them get an evidentiary “leg up”.

Or a spouse elects to manufacture an incident that gets reported to the local police in order to have the other parent removed from the household; buttons are pushed until a physical incident occurs.

These are not valid child custody coping mechanisms.  A good family law attorney that has her client’s best interests in mind will vigorously counsel against such tactics.  Not only do contrived allegations hurt the parties, but they waste precious resources and take the focus away from those who really need the help.  

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Six Holiday Parenting Tips

This is a seasonal re-post from last December.  The suggestions apply to divorced or separated families this time of the year.


Often, tensions escalate over the holidays as divorced parents struggle with the demands of scheduling the children to accommodate two households.  Holiday schedules are already difficult without the complications of a divorce judgment or divorce proceeding.

Here are some practical tips in dealing with holiday parenting time gleaned from divorce lawyers around the state.

1. Reduce an alternating holiday schedule to a court order.  It is always best for the children when the parents can agree on a schedule.  Alternating holidays is most common when drafting the parenting schedule.  When both parents live close to one another, many families utilize a shared holiday model where the children spend time with one parent until noon, and the other  parent for the balance of the day; then the next year, they switch.  This works for Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and other holidays.  
2. Discuss the schedule with the children.  One solid co-parenting tactic is for both parents, once an agreement is reached, to communicate the schedule to the children.  This way, the children know in advance what to expect.  This can best be accomplished when both parents commit to rational communication and reasonable compromise for the children's sake.
3. Keep the activities simple.  This tip is particularly essential when the children are relatively young and if the divorce is still fresh.  The wounds of the once-whole family have yet to heal; holidays are particularly painful for both children and parents.  Therefore, it makes sense to tone down the activities and avoid rushing hither and yon during your now-scheduled parenting time.
4. Let your child express her feelings to you.  It is important to allow your children the opportunity to express their feelings of loss and disappointment and for you, as the parent, to validate those feelings.  What the child once experienced as an intact family unit has been fractured by divorce.  Therefore, pretending that everything is fine, or over-scheduling a whirlwind of activities to the point of distraction, will only add to the stress of your holiday parenting time.
5. Involve your extended family.  The more love the child feels during the years immediately following a divorce, the better.  Therefore, schedule some quality family time with members of your extended family.  Certainly, this would be a great opportunity for your children to spend time with their grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.  If your extended family is highly dysfunctional then, er, not-so-much.  
6. Avoid including a new "significant other".  This is the last thing you want to do at the holidays; not the time or the place.  Including your "significant other" too soon is a selfish thing to do to your children.  Upon reflection, you would probably agree that you would be doing that for yourself, certainly not for your children.  Children of divorce already struggle with guilt, a sense of loss, and insecurity.  They often perceive the introduction of a stranger, especially one that is close and intimate with their parent, as a threat, not a benefit from their parents' divorce.

Of course, the above holiday parenting tips must be adjusted to be age-appropriate.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to this touchy subject.

Finally, a positive parental attitude over the holidays does wonders for a child's comfort and confidence.  Be the adult, not the child.

Post Note: For another local attorney's take on this subject, take a look at our friend, Henry Gornbein's post in the Huffington Post Divorce Blog.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

Sibling Visitation - Does it Exist?

We have all heard the term “visitation” before, especially if you have been involved in a child custody dispute or divorce.  The term most often used by family law lawyers and professionals is “parenting time”; referring to the legal right [and obligation] of a parent to spend time with one’s child following a divorce.  

Even grandparents, under limited and specific circumstances, may have a legal right to visit with their grandchildren according to Michigan law.

But what about siblings?  Does a brother or sister have the right to visit their sibling, if for some reason they are no longer living within the same household? 

The short answer is that sibling visitation is not recognized as a legal right in Michigan.   The Child Custody Act does not provide for visitation rights between siblings.  Add adoption into the mix and the result remains the same – but for a more specific reason.  

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals grappled with, and attempted to decide

this very issue in Wilson v King; a published thus binding opinion of the intermediate appellate court.

Marquita Wilson, the plaintiff-mother in this case, had three children who were eventually adopted into a new family in 2008 after her parental rights had been terminated.  Ms. Wilson then gave birth to a fourth child; Mac.  

The adoptive parents of Ms. Wilson's three children initially allowed Mac to visit with his siblings.  Sadly, for reasons not stated in the Court of Appeals opinion, the adoptive parents ultimately discontinued these sibling visits.  

Ms. Wilson filed suit on behalf of Mac in Wayne County Family Court.  The family court judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the right to “sibling visitation” does not exist under Michigan Law.  On appeal, Ms. Wilson argued that Michigan law does provide for a cause of action for sibling visitation and that the lower court had erred in dismissing her case.  

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision – but did not find one way or the other on whether or not Michigan law provides for a cause of action for sibling visitation.  Instead, the Court focused on the fact that Mac’s older siblings had been adopted.  

Adoption legally severs any ties to the prior, natural family, and creates, in its place, a new adoptive family recognized at law.  This means that, legally speaking, Mac’s older siblings (once they had been adopted) were no longer his legal siblings in the eyes of the law.   

The Court of Appeals held that even if a cause of action regarding sibling visitation existed (which the Court made sure to footnote that they offered “no opinion as to the viability of such a claim”) in Mac’s instance the claim must fail as the three adoptive children were no longer his siblings. 

While we recognize the psychological importance of eliminating contact with biological parents in order to facilitate growth in the new adoptive family, this ruling strikes us as similar in spirit to the old paternity act that denied a biological father standing to seek any parenting time with his child whatsoever.

The ruling seems to foster the notion of wiping-out all traces of the adopted child's  biological family.  Many adopted children, as they mature, seek out traces of their biological families.  Some of these children, as they mature into adulthood, obsess over their lost families and seek therapy to deal with the loss.

At base, however, there is really no-way in cases like this to allow sibling visitation, without also focusing on the biological parents.  Our adoption laws currently do not provide for the maintenance of two families; just one: the adoptive family.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Double-Dipping for Alimony

The original "double-dip".

Many of us, when we think of “double-dipping,” immediately envision George Costanza nonchalantly eating chips and dip at a boring party. He bites the chip, dips, bites again, dips again, oblivious and happy.

Meanwhile, a fellow party-goer and disgusted onlooker cannot contain the impulse to put a stop to this obvious dip-contaminating behavior and confronts George. Inane hilarity ensues; check it out here.  [Note: Post-Seinfeld generation and long-time Seinfeld enthusiasts – you’re welcome.]

Double-dipping, in the world of family law, typically refers to the way assets are valued in the division of a marital estate.  A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Loutts v Loutts, addresses this issue of “double-dipping” in the spousal support context.

This divorce case originated in the Washtenaw County family court.  One of the main issues in the case was how to determine an appropriate spousal support award where the marital assets included a business valued at more than a quarter million dollars.

The husband started, owned, and operated the business. When the family court awarded half of the business value to his wife, the question became: what income should be imputed to husband now that half the value of the business had been conveyed to wife?

When determining spousal support, the parties’ incomes must be determined so that the family court may decide how to equitably balance the incomes. The Michigan Court of Appeals has articulated a balancing test such that:

the primary purpose of spousal support is to balance the parties’ incomes and needs such that neither party will be impoverished, and spousal support must be based on what is just and reasonable considering the circumstances.

The family court can only perform this balance test on a case-by-case basis – typically unwilling to follow any bright-line rules for determining the rate and term of a spousal support award.

The family court in Loutts, after awarding wife half the value of the business, imputed approximately $130,000 income to husband.  This imputed income was utilized to “equitably balance” the incomes of the parties.

In doing so, the family court judge relied on case law to determine that “the value of a business may be used for the purpose of either property distribution or spousal support, but not both.” On appeal, wife argued that the court should have used the full-value of the business in determining her spousal support award.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, remanding this issue back to the family court for a re-determination of spousal support based upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  In their opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that the trial court’s reliance upon the Heller v Heller case was misplaced to the extent that, “the appellate court stated that its determination that a double-dip was inequitable was based on the facts of that case alone and was not a determination that double-dipping is never permissible.”  [The emphasis is ours.]

The obvious "take-away" from this recent case is that, when it comes to determining spousal support, bright-line rules simply do not apply. Rather, the family court judge should consider a variety of factors, including: the conduct of the parties, their ability to work, their ages, needs, health, present situation, prior standard of living, ability to pay alimony, and general principles of equity.

Double-dipping might be ok – given specific factual and equitable circumstances.  Exactly what those circumstances are remains a fuzzy, mutable, arguable enigma, ripe for the art of legal persuasion.

The one constant is that each case before the family court is unique and should be considered so by the judge.

Also of note in the Loutts decision is that the Court of Appeals wasted no time in upholding a 3-year non-compete provision that applied to the business and to which wife agreed, but appealed.  The Court held that you get what you bargain for.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Former Lesbian Finds Religion Kidnaps Child

.

This case from Vermont displays some of the worst features of a parent taking family law into her own hands.  It is one thing for a parent to denounce her same-sex union and her lesbianism; it is entirely another to then plunge into a "born-again" culture, kidnapping her child to Central America and removing her from the other legal parent.

The case of Lisa Miller, Janet Jenkins and their 10-year old daughter, Isabella, is in the headlines as the Mennonite pastor that assisted Miller in fleeing the country goes on trial today in federal court in Burlington, Vermont.  No one knows where Miller and Isabella are today; Jenkins has not seen her daughter in over 3-years.

The civil union between the two women began to deteriorate 8-years ago when Miller denounced lesbianism in favor of her born-again conversion into a conservative Christian sect known as the Beachy Amish Mennonites.  Miller moved with Isabella to Virginia to be near church headquarters and tried to terminate Ms. Jenkins' parental rights.

The resulting protracted family court battle, waged in two state courts, resulted in an order of the Vermont Supreme Court granting custody to Jenkins; the Vermont ruling was honored and upheld by the courts in Virginia, where Miller tried to plead her cause.

Apparently, Miller had a change-of-heart regarding the family she created with Jenkins, and the lifestyle to which the parents belonged.  Once Miller "found God" within the conservative Christian Mennonite sect, she saw lesbianism as an "addiction" and found her partner to be an unfit parent who would not be allowed into heaven because she lived, in sin, with women.

At that point, as is so often the case with folks who find religion later in life, no laws of man or high court rulings could hold her back from her religious convictions.  In Virginia, Miller was employed for a time at Liberty Christian Academy, a school with close ties to Liberty University, the conservative christian college founded by Jerry Falwell.

Miller was represented in the family courts in the two states by lawyers from the Liberty Counsel, affiliated with the Liberty University's School of Law.  Her lawyers took the position that Virginia law, not Vermont law, should apply to the custody dispute in this case on the basis that the latter state "recognized as a parent a person that is not a parent", contrary to "biblical truths."  Virginia does not recognize same-sex unions as Vermont does.

Nevertheless, the Virginia family court and appellate courts ultimately ruled that Vermont properly had jurisdiction of the case.  When the Vermont family court judge ordered a parenting schedule that Miller refused to follow, he changed custody of the child to Jenkins in Vermont.

Shortly after this custody ruling, Miller disappeared with her daughter to Nicaragua.

Stay tuned to see how the federal jury that is being selected today in Virginia decides the fate of the local pastor that assisted Miller with fleeing the country, and whether Miller and her daughter will ever turn-up.

Clashes over child custody, lifestyle and religion; this case features all that and then some.  But we here at the Law Blogger must insist that it is never a good idea to take the law into your own hands.  That principle holds true whether you are the parent, or the pastor.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Contempt in the Family Court

Just prior to the July 4th holiday, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided an unpublished case that has caught our eye.  This case, Klass vs Klass, details the custody battle of a family from Midland County.

The case is notable, not because of the incredible dysfunction demonstrated by the parents of the minor children, particularly the mother, but because the guts of this 10-page decision lays out the legal background behind the "contempt of court" sanction in the context of family court.

This blog has noted a trend of recent Court of Appeals cases holding that a parent's selection of a "significant other" can be greatly regulated by the family court.  If a parent elects to ignore a family court's ruling, that parent, as in this case, can be jailed and fined.  These rulings will be upheld by the Court of Appeals.

As a divorce lawyer with 24-years experience, I realize that parents often do not "play fair" in the family court system, and even good parents sometimes lose sight of the true best interests of their children.  It's one thing, however, to have a legitimate difference of opinion as to those interests; it's another thing altogether when a parent places their own interests above those of the children.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Boyfriend's Background Check Refusal Causes Child Custody Modification

In this modern day, it is very important to know with whom your children are associating.  Danger lurks everywhere, including in the home next door, down the street, across town, or across the country.

Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion for publication [meaning that it now binds all lower courts] in a case from the Newago County Family Court.  The case, Mitchell v Mitchell, holds that a Mother's refusal to abide by a family court's ruling to provide a background check on her live-in boyfriend is "just cause" to modify custody.

In Mitchell, the parents divorced and Mother eventually moved to Texas.  Apparently, Mom's boyfriend was instrumental in the all-too-common process of alienation directed at the non-relocating parent.  Mom did not fire-up the Skype and botched a few Texas to Michigan trips, as ordered by the family court at the time it granted leave for the relocation.

Most importantly, however, Mom and her boyfriend refused to provide the court-ordered background check.  This proved fatal to her custody case and now, Dad has the kids.  What a mess.

From time to time, our law firm gets cases where one parent, in moving on to other relationships, exhibits risky behavior relative to the selection of his or her live-in partner.  In such cases, what can the other parent do; just sit back and wait for the damage to be done?

Now, thanks to the published Mitchell decision, one safeguard that can be requested is for the family court to order a background check of the individual.  If used properly, this device will provide some information that would otherwise be unavailable.

A competing concern is, of course, the privacy of the individual.  This ruling can, and no doubt will, be used offensively and improperly as often as it is used in the fashion intended by the 3-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

All we here at the Law Blogger can say about that is: is he or she really worth it?  Best to err on the side of caution for the safety of the children.

In our practice, we routinely counsel clients to take it slow when it comes to introducing young children to the new "significant other".  Divorce is unsettling enough; the new person is most often seen by the kids, even when nice, as a threat.  They may repress their anxiety in order to gain approval from the relocating parent.

What a mess we can make right in our own kitchens.

The best defense to all of this is to exercise good judgment and to err on the side of putting the kids first; something that Kate Mitchell was found not to have done.  In so doing, she has unwittingly handed us family law attorneys a defensive weapon which can be wielded in the protection of the children.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Narcissus Gets A Divorce

Narcissus admires his reflection.

In my decades of divorce practice, I've encountered folks who, if a psychological evaluation was completed, would be characterized as having narcissistic personality disorder.  A few of these peeps have been clients; others have been on the opposing side.

Either way, everyone involved is in for a rough ride.

Over the past several years, "narcissism" has also taken on a connotation-du-jour.  The diagnosis being made by dime-store psychologists (i.e. parties to family court litigation) whenever the object takes an opposing or contrary view. 

What is narcissim, really?

According to the Mayo Clinic, narcissistic personality disorder is "characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders."   A person with this personality disorder may exhibit some of the following characteristics, according to the Clinic:

• Believing you are better than others;
• Fantasizing about your success, power and attractiveness;
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents;
• Expecting constant praise and admiration;
• Ignoring other's feelings and emotions;
• Believing and acting like you are really, really special;
• Taking advantage of others;
• Expecting others to go along with your often super-sized schemes and plans;
• Exhibiting jealousy toward others;
• Believing others are jealous of you;
• Unable to maintain healthy inter-personal relationships;
• Easily hurt or rejected;
• Fragile self-esteem

If you know someone with more than a few of these traits, run.  If you are married to such a person, get ready for the inevitable divorce proceeding when you finally throw in the towel, realizing that your spouse will never change. 

If you are a lawyer representing such a person, affix your chin strap and bring a lunch.

In the divorce context, the narcissist fares quite poorly.  The above-listed features of this personality disorder are routinely identifed and rigorously addressed by family court professionals. 

In this process, the personality flaws of the narcissist are forced itno the lab for a full-on forensic evaluation.  Many of the tools in the family court professional's arsenal will be brought to bear upon the conduct of the narcissist in an effort to force short-term modification, and to achieve a stable platform.

Some red flags that I've gleaned over the years: a narcissist will change lawyers often, blaming the status of the case on the mistakes of prior legal counsel.  Also, the register of actions in the case of a narcissist will often be a mile long, peppered with hearings, motions, and more hearings.

When a narcissist is embroiled in a divorce proceeding, the children are used as pawns.  Any input from the Friend of the Court [either via a referee, family counselor, or social worker] or from a therapist, is rejected; the narcissistic parent must be dragged to court, kicking, screaming and cursing.

In the years leading up to such a divorce, the other spouse will often report being chronically verbally abused and bullied by the narcissist.  In fact, this dynamic will set the initial tone of the proceeding.

The process will next feature a series of attempts, which will take some time, where the professionals try to arrest the insidious and pervasive conduct of the narcissist.  Arrest, but not change; this person will not change.

The other spouse many times will exhibit classic signs of emotional abuse during this painful process: low self-esteem, exhaustion, a desire to give up or give in.  This person needs a strong focused divorce lawyer.

And counseling. 

During the divorce process, the other spouse is well advised to minimize the face-to-face contacts with the narcissist.  If children are involved, then communicate through emails and texts. 

If you feel threatened at home or during parenting exchanges, seek exclusive use of the marital home.  If you are separated, use a neutral transition point for the parenting exchanges; most family court judges will grant such a request simply to err on the side of everyone's safety.

Finally, stay focused on the process knowing that the process will eventually come to an end.  The Michigan Supreme Court has mandated that county family courts conclude divorce proceedings within a year.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Post-Divorce Nesting

This week in Time Magazine, there is a story in the "Society" section about a mode of parenting known as, "Nesting".  This is where divorced parents each secure a residence beyond the former marital home; the couple's children remain in the marital home, to "nest".
The theory behind nesting is that it seeks to minimize the sense of upheaval that children of school age often experience during and after their parent's divorce.

Time's Belinda Luscombe speculates that the nesting mode of post-divorce parenting has emerged over the past decade as an innovative version of co-parenting.  It remains rare, however, to get both parents on the same page be able to pull it off.

In the past decade, I have completed nearly 250 divorces and only two of those featured a nesting arrangement.  Of those two cases, one of nests was destroyed, via foreclosure.

On the other hand, the difficult real estate market has forced many divorcing couples to hang onto their former marital home; like it or not.  Nesting would seem to be a viable option.  Usually, however, one of the parents "takes one for the team" and remains in the marital home, or the couple "walks away" from the home to begin their new post-divorce lives under the cloud of foreclosure.

Proponents assert that the nesting arrangement eliminates the continuous shuffling between two homes by the children that comes with a traditional parenting schedule; the parents do the shuffling in a nesting arrangement.  Also, for children of a certain age, the arrangement allows them to continue living and going to school in a familiar environment, their childhood home, while they adjust to their parents' divorce.

Most family court judges look upon nesting arrangements with a certain degree of skepticism, if not outright scorn.  In family court, however, parents are free to make whatever arrangements they desire so long as the judge can be convinced it is in best interests of the children involved in the case.

As a temporary post-divorce parenting technique between two cooperating amiable co-parents, nesting can work.  It very well may provide the minor children with a better opportunity to adjust to the strains of divorce.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

When Children Live with a Child Murderer Endorsed by the Family Court

A very worried Trisha Conlon

This bizarre family law custody case is playing out in Seattle, WA.  The unusual facts of the case bring into sharp focus the challenge of putting parents' often-questionable decisions through review by a family court judge.

In 1995 Trisha Conlon married Marine fighter pilot John Cushing, Jr.; a man with a tragic past.  His ex-wife, Kristine Cushing, shot to death their two young daughters, 4 and 8, while they slept in their Southern California home.  This was in 1991, when Mr. Cushing was on active duty in the Marine Corps and Mrs. Cushing, by all accounts, was an ideal soccer Mom.

Kristine Cushing's murder trial featured the now infamous "Prozac Defense"; she was found guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to a mental institution where she did a nickle, followed by a decade of intensive in-patient style psychiatric treatment.  She was discharged without restriction in 2005.

Meanwhile, John Cushing tried to put the pieces of his life back together.  He married Trisha Conlon, with whom he had two sons.  Sadly yet predictably, the couple divorced in 2004.  Mr. Cushing's next "life-choice" was to re-marry his first wife, Kristine Cushing, the now-excused infanticidal murderess.

Today, Lt. Col. Cushing (retired) lives on Vashon Island, WA with a split-custody arrangement whereby one of his sons lives with him; the other lives with Ms. Conlon.  The brothers reunite during holidays and vacations.  Under this custody arrangement, Conlon eventually became aware that her ex-spouse not only re-married his first wife, but also shared a marital home with her and Conlon's son.

This information was difficult to come by as Mr. Cushing attempted to conceal his family arrangements.  The distance between the two parents provided the necessary cover.  Ms. Conlon, now living in Oregon, resorted to her family law attorney and his private investigator.

Seeking a change in custody to place her son into her home, Conlon brought proof of the Cushing reunification to the attention of the family court in King County, Washington (Seattle), arguing the arrangement was a "change in circumstance" detrimental to her son's best interests.  She lost her case last month; a hearing on appeal is set for next week.

This case is a testament to the lengths people will go in the name of love, marriage, and progenitorship. Many, perhaps most of us, would not make the same decision as the Lt. Col. in this case; infanticide is just a flat-out "deal-breaker".  On the other hand, imagine the love and forgiveness Cushing must have for his first wife to be able to take such a risk.

To the extent that his decision has placed his son in harm's path, it will be up to a family court judge of the King County Superior Court in Seattle to determine what is best for the boy under its jurisdiction.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Proposed Divorce Legislation Distinguishes Marital From Separate Property

Two new bills pending in the Michigan legislature attempt to address a long-perceived problem in Michigan family law: how to classify property [separate or marital] in a divorce proceeding.  This legislative proposal has judges and divorce attorneys up in arms.

The tie-barred bills, 4672 and 4673, introduced by Livonia Republican John Walsh, propose standards for the division of marital property, and comingled marital and separate property; create a presumption of non-division for separate property; and revises the procedures by which a family court could "invade" one spouse's separate property and award it to the other spouse.

In Michigan, a family court judge's power to apportion property in a divorce comes strictly from statutes; a confusing patchwork of four separate statutes, to be precise.  Because of this legislative patchwork, a significant body of common law has developed over the past 30-years addressing the classification and division of property.

Although every divorce case is decided on its own merit, the present state of divorce law allows the distinct possibility, if sufficent and compelling factors are proven, for the invasion of separate property.  The new legislation is largely viewed as making such an invasion more difficult, if not impossible.

Birmingham divorce attorney James P. Cunningham summarized the problem in a 2008 Michigan Bar Journal article, calling for legislation to "fill the gap" between the cases.  Cunningham was on the floor of the house in Lansing last week to testify as an expert about the need for this legislation and, presumably, to endorse the content of Walsh's bills.

So why such a fuss from the family court bench and bar?  First, they contend that Walsh is fast-tracking the legislation without input from their professional organizations.  Second, these groups also assert the proposed measures are grossly unfair to the non-propertied spouse.

When cornered by a reporter at the Capitol last week, a lobbist for the bills denied they were being fast-tracked but wryly noted that the family court bar was a veritable "graveyard" for good ideas.

Is this going to be a case of the rich getting richer?  The so-called "missionaries for the family" certainly think so and are determined to quash the measures; you should have seen the chatter about these bills appearing on the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law listserve...

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Fathers See Gains in County Family Courts

Do the regularly maintained statistics support the contention that fathers are getting more time with their children in family courts?  To borrow a lyric from the 70’s band, Boston, “it’s more than a feeling”.

 

Divorce records maintained by the Michigan Department of Community Health reflect a trend that family law professionals have observed, and perhaps helped influence; fathers with joint custody and equal parenting time.

While family law attorneys will no doubt acknowledge this trend, hard statistics are difficult to garner.  Custody is still decided on a “case-by-case”, county by county, basis.

The form used by MDCH to collect information about divorces has a field to designate custody of minor children involved in a case.  The person completing the form, usually an attorney, selects from the basic options of joint custody, or designates custody to mother, or father.

Per usual, however, the devil is in the details.  For many practicing family law, the formal custody designation set forth in a judgment of divorce or custody order is merely a label, and a poor one at that.

Joint legal custody is usually a given; an accepted starting point.  Physical custody, however, is a more contentious battlefield.  The phrase “physical custody” does not even appear in the Michigan Child Custody Act; it is a mechanism used by family law attorneys and family court judges to identify a custodial parent.

The more significant provision is the parenting schedule set forth in the judgment.  Not only does that schedule establish how much actual contact the minor children get with each parent, it also determines the child support obligation for each parent.

Purely anecdotal evidence from our recent divorce cases is consistent with the trend that Fathers are awarded joint custody (legal and physical) more often and, roughly, equal parenting time.  One size, however, does not fit all.

An article titled Throwaway Dads, from the Michigan Bar Journal from 10-years ago, decrying a gender bias against fathers, provides an interesting barometer relative to the climate change in Michigan’s county family courts.

There must be good reasons to establish where the children of a divorce will live, and even better reasons to limit them from the home of one of their parents.  Focusing on the parenting schedule rather than the custody label is the real trend at work here.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com