Minor's Guardian Cannot Prevent Grandparent Visitation

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that a court-appointed guardian of a minor child cannot prevent contact between the child and his Grandmother.  Thus, this case holds that a minor's guardian is not the equivalent of a parent.

This case, Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, is one of first impression in Michigan as no prior decisions directly touched on this issue.  The published and thus binding decision will have a significant impact on minor guardianships.

The facts in the case are sad, as are so many of the cases from our family and probate courts.  The minor's mother is deceased and his father, once homeless, is in prison on a sex abuse conviction.

After nearly a year of not being allowed to see her grandson, the paternal grandmother sought visitation under the grandparent visitation statute.  She filed a motion in the Genesee County Family Court hoping to go over-the-head of her grandson's guardian, who repeatedly refused the grandmother's requests for visitation.

Family Court Judge Kay Behm ruled after 4-days of evidentiary hearings that a guardian could step into the shoes of a parent and deny contact with the grandmother.  In ruling in the Grandmother's favor, the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Behm holding that: the grandparenting statute was not properly followed; that the Legislature elected not to equate a guardian with a parent in the context of the grandparenting statute; and that the minor guardianship and the grandparenting statutes cover different subject matter.

The next step is reunification between grandmother and grandson.  For this young boy's sake, hopefully this will go well; he already has a very troubled past.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Should Your Divorce Go To Trial

Yesterday, I was sure that I was going to spend the entire day in a divorce trial; my first in a quarter century of practice. Didn't happen.

Why? Because trial in divorce rarely makes sense. This case, in Genesee County, had it all: a GAL for the minor children; a joint bankruptcy in the middle of the proceedings; two [failed] mediation sessions; motions from each side, jousting for the entry of temporary support and parenting orders.

The case was positioned for trial because both sides held onto rigid positions on many of the issues important in any divorce proceeding: custody, parenting time, child support, alimony and debt apportionment. My law clerk, a third year student at Wayne State, prepared an excellent trial brief; she had compiled a trial notebook, and we were prepared and ready to go.

As the case was the oldest on Judge Kay Behm's docket [18-months], I knew it was going to resolve one way or another.

The case did resolve, after 8-hours in the courtroom, because each of the parents made common-sense, strategic compromises. In the end, the parents each looked past their own personal wounds, and their self-centered agendas, and took into account the best interests of their minor children.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather conduct a trial than spend the entire day as I did yesterday, painstakingly going over, discussing, negotiating, and resolving every aspect of a failed marriage and the flotsam that goes along with it. But as a divorce lawyer, I keep the best interests of the client in mind. Trial almost never makes sense.

So it may be that when I finally retire, I will have never conducted a divorce trial. Actually, that is a client-service goal of mine.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com