False Child Abuse and Neglect Complaints

Sometimes, co-parents take an overly aggressive approach to reporting perceived wrongs to their county Child Protective Services. If this becomes a habit, there are steps the target parent can take to protect their custody position in a high-conflict family court proceeding.

First, making a false claim of abuse or neglect is a felony. The target parent should contact local law enforcement to see whether a case can be charged.

Second, if a series of false or unfounded reports is made to CPS, ask the case worker to report this conduct to the Friend of the Court. This could result in a warning being issued or a modification of custody.

Third, the Court of Appeals has recognized that a co-parent that lodges false reports of abuse or neglect negatively impacts their own custody chances. The Court of Appeals has directed family courts to take this into account when making a custody determination in a high-conflict case.

The purpose behind these measures is not to punish the offending parent but rather, to advance the best interests of the minor children who are often in the middle of such disputes. When a CPS complaint is lodged, regardless of merit, interviews with the minor children are triggered as well as visits to the children's school and the parents' homes.

When a series of baseless claims are made, these interviews and visits become onerous and offensive. The offending parent need to be shut down.

If you are the target of false claims of child abuse or neglect, contact our law firm in order to discuss your options at a free consultation.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Famous Mother Loses Custody

As divorce lawyers, we see many custody battles unfold in the family court. Over the years, our law firm has developed experience in the defense and the prosecution of child custody battles; we have become students of the industry.

When not actively engaged in a custody proceeding, our lawyers monitor the legal and popular press for interesting cases. This week, the incredible custody battle of Gossip Girl actress Kelly Rutherford caught our attention.

This sad case has everything: million dollar divorce lawyers, a pricey detective, a working bi-coastal actress mother, a European businessman father, a case in LA, a case in New York City, bankruptcy, restraining orders, State Department involvement, a White House plea, and two very well-traveled young children.

While Rutherford was pregnant with their second child in 2008, the briefly married couple filed for divorce in Los Angeles County, California. The father, German business entrepreneur David Giersch, sought sole custody and the couple began a protracted battle over labels like legal custody and physical custody.

This label battle soon began to take on real-life dimensions when Rutherford sought to move the toddlers to NYC where she was filming a season of Gossip Girl.  Father objected on grounds that the actress' job was detrimental to their children and that NYC was unsafe.

When Rutherford believes she is being followed by Giersch, she obtains an injunction; a protective order. She alleges Giersch is abusive during parenting exchanges. She hires a detective to surveil father for three days; for his part, Giersch denies the allegations of abusive conduct.

In August 2012, the family court judge orders the children to live with their father in France and Monaco.  This ruling was affirmed a year later and the children left for Europe last week to live, permanently, with their father.

Along the way, Rutherford has spent over a million dollars on divorce lawyers and private investigators, has filed for bankruptcy, and more recently submitted a petition to the White House asking that the president get involved in her case.

So what goes into a family court judge's calculus in relocating two American children to Europe? One of the major sticking points seems to be the mysterious revocation of father's visa, barring him from entry into the U.S. Some say Rutherford was behind the move, accusing her ex-spouse of running guns and drugs across international boarders.

Another problem for mother was the judge's dim view of her credibility; in the opinion, the judge pointed to mother's lack of candor relative to testimony about her work schedule and other important matters. If Rutherford did arrange to get Giersch's visa revoked, she shot herself in the foot to the extent that she basically forced the judge's hands.

Change of domicile cases are among the most disruptive scenarios to occur in family court; they are much more prevalent in our mobile society.

Further, once the relocation was affirmed, the LA County family court washed its hands of the entire case, ruling that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. Oddly, this did not occur before that court strangely awarded Rutherford temporary sole custody over her children, perhaps as a gesture to allow mother to "say goodbye".

From there, Rutherford recently re-filed in NYC. It was Gotham from which the children departed last week for Europe.

Although she has free access to conduct parenting time when in Monaco, the mechanics of Trans-Atlantic parenting and the lack of an enforcement mechanism are daunting, even for a famous actress. So for now, lives lay in ruin at the hands of two famously warring parents.

In such cases, there is very little that a family court can do to patch such a yawning rift. If you are facing custody and parenting troubles, consider giving our law firm a call to schedule a free consultation.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Custody Bills Protect Soldiers

Yesterday, Governor Snyder signed Senate Bill 09 and tied barred House Bills 4071 and 4482 which provide protections for active service members involved in family court child custody proceedings.  The Senate bill stays custody proceedings during a service member's deployment while the House bills provide similar protection relative to court-ordered parenting time.

The new legislation simply amends the Child Custody Act, an oft-amended piece of legislation. The amendments provide service members protection in the form of a stay of proceedings until the period of deployment ends.

In order for the service member to avail himself or herself of the protections of the new laws, that service member must request the stay from the family court. In cases of emergency, a family court judge would still have the power to modify the custody or parenting time of a minor child.

These bills received unanimous support in both legislative chambers, perhaps due to the case of an active duty father who temporarily lost custody of his child while on a 6-month submarine deployment for the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Ocean.

If you or a family member are active duty military and need assistance for a family law matter, contact our law firm for a free consult. We provide fee discounts for active military.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Series of Moves Violates 100-Mile Rule

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals again considered the 100-mile rule in a published decision. The case is significant to the extent that it provides parents guidance on the location of their post-divorce domicile and is yet another case that illustrates the concept of joint custody.

In Eickelberg v Eickelberg, the parents were awarded joint legal custody. Father was active military and made two job-related moves after the divorce: first from the former marital home in Clinton Township to Perry, MI 86 miles away; then on to Marshal, MI which was 126 miles from the former marital home. 

Understandably, Father's move complicated his parenting time; especially his mid-week parenting contact with the children.  So he moved the court to modify the parenting schedule and to adjust the parenting transition point to a location closer to his new home in Marshal.

Equally understandably, Mother objected arguing that Father's series of moves violated the 100-mile rule which prohibits a custodial parent from moving to a location more than 100-miles from the child's residence at the time the divorce or custody proceeding was initiated. The Court of Appeals rejected the Macomb County family court's calculation that the miles to be measured were only from the Father's most-recent residence; i.e. from Perry to Marshal.

Since Father's second move was more than 100-miles from Clinton Township, he was required to obtain Mother's approval prior to the move, or the family court should have held a hearing to consider the so-called "change of domicile" factors in order to determine whether the proposed change is in the best interests of the minor children. In addition, to further complicate the legal analysis, because Father's move changed the children's "established custodial environment", the eleven statutory best interest factors also should have been evaluated by the lower court.

Consequently, the case was sent back to the Macomb County family court to conduct such a hearing.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

   

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

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

When Father is Relegated to the Weekend Parent

By: Timothy P. Flynn

A case that caught our attention from the Michigan Court of Appeals last month deserves mention in this blog.  The case comes from the St. Clair County's Family Court; the family court judge that ruled in Mother's favor to allow a significant modification of the parenting schedule was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

In Burke v Lobodzinski, the family court judge sided with Mother in her petition to modify the child's week-on-week-off parenting schedule, allowing Mother to move with the child from Bay City to Troy.  The parenting schedule was modified so that Mother had the child during the school year and Father had evey-other-weekend.

In doing so, the family court judge was in part swayed by Mother's testimony that the move allowed her to be a "stay-at-home" mom due to her husband's new job.  The effect of the ruling was to relegate Father to a weekend parent.

Even though the move was not more than 100-miles [a statutory threshold], the family court held that it was significant because it involved a change in school districts for the child, and made the alternating weekly parenting schedule untenable.  The lower court concluded the proposed move was in the child's best interests, and Dad lost out.

In reversing the St. Clair Family Court judge, the Court of Appeals was persuaded by two things: a) since the proposed move would alter the established custodial environment of the child, the lower court utilized the lower burden of proof [preponderance of the evidence] instead of the intermediate burden [clear and convincing evidence]; and b) Mother may have provided false testimony about being a stay-at-home mom when, in fact, she was employed as a clerk at the Macomb County Circuit Court.

The burden of proof is significant in cases like this.  Mother's motion, if decided on a preponderance standard, is easier to establish and thus prevail.  If Mother had the heightened burden, the motion is more difficult to carry.

As for lying to the court about her job, that too should be taken into account.  On remand, however, the Court of Appeals noted that the lower court should also take into account the fact that the child was allowed to continue living with her Mother in Troy during the year this case took to decide on appeal.

Custody of our children, much like the possession of chattel, seems to be driven by the age-old principle: possession is nine tenths of the law.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
tflynn@clarkstonlegal.com

Stepparent Adoption Complicated by Legal Custody Label

By: Amanda Chapman

About one year ago, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently gave us one more reason to care about legal custody when negotiating a divorce with minor children.  During the divorce process it is often difficult for those involved to consider the future and a possible remarriage down the road. 

If we are lucky, cupid strikes again, resulting in a second or third nuptials. Sometimes these marriages result in the progression toward stepparent adoption of their spouses’ children.  

The lesson learned by this recent Court of Appeals case, In re: AJR, Minor, is that an award of joint legal custody in a divorce judgment may result in a more complicated legal process down the road in the event that a stepparent wishes to adopt the child of their spouse.

In this case from Kent County Circuit Court, a father’s parental rights were terminated under the stepparent adoption statute [MCL710.51(6)] on the basis that father had failed to comply with a child support order and had neglected to visit his child during the previous two years. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the family court’s decision by determining that the stepparent adoption statute does not apply when the parents have joint legal custody.  It turns out that father was awarded joint legal custody of the child in the divorce judgment, thus having a say in the proposed adoption proceedings.  

Mother was awarded joint legal custody and sole physical custody, relative to the biological father. Mother then remarried and was hopeful that her new spouse could adopt her child.  The biological father refused to consent or agree to the termination of his parental rights in order to facilitate the stepparent adoption. 

When the Circuit Court granted the stepparent adoption, terminating father’s rights despite his previous award of joint legal custody, father's appeal was successful.  Our intermediate appellate court held that the statutory language of the stepparent adoption statute:

[i]s to be construed as requiring the parent initiating termination proceedings to be the only parent having custody…the rights of a parent who maintains joint legal custody are not properly terminated under [the statute].  [Emphasis and brackets supplied.]

Now, the case is being considered on further appeal by the Michigan Supreme Court; oral arguments took place last fall and a decision by the High Court could come at any moment.

The takeaway for parents who are going through a divorce with minor children is to make sure that your divorce decree addresses legal custody.  You never know what the future will bring, but it is folly to open the door for a possible parental rights termination proceeding in the event your former spouse remarries.

Post Script:  In June 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling in this case thus, it is now more important than ever to take custody into account when negotiating a custody judgment in family court.  

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

100th Post - Thank You Readers

This is our 100th post; thanks to all our readers and to the folks that post comments to this blog. It has taken us several years to muster 100 posts here at the electronic divorce attorney. Check out the very first post from 2009.

This blog focuses on all things related to divorce, child custody, parenting time, and other family law related issues. We have attempted to impart to our readers information on the changes and currents in the family law.

The electronic divorce attorney is a companion blog to the other blogs maintained on our law firm's web site. In the upcoming months, look for regular posts from the attorneys from our law firm, Clarkston Legal, and from guest bloggers in the industry.

Again, thank you for taking the time to check out our blog. We hope you enjoy our future posts.

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

Collaborative Divorce Software

Michelle Crosby of Wevorce

The collaborative divorce method is where a married couple, either by themselves or with the assistance of professionals, agree upon the terms of their divorce judgment prior to filing for divorce.  The theory is that, without the adversarial pressures of the family court and the "system" [i.e. Friend of the Court], these parties are free to explore and negotiate options that make sense for them, not the Court and the lawyers.

Professional assistance usually takes the form of divorce lawyers, counselors, church leaders, and now, specialized collaborative divorce software known as Wevorce.  This West Coast start-up was founded by Michelle Crosby, a product of the old-school divorce process.  Introducing her divorce tool product on the company website, Ms. Crosby tell us that her parents waged a 15-year war over her parenting time.

According to the ABA Journal, the "up-front" cost to purchase the software for a family is about $6500; many individual spouses would spend north of $5000 on divorce lawyers, each, depending on the case.

The idea behind the cloud-based software, not yet available here in Michigan, is to prompt the divorcing couple to "populate" their divorce documents with customized and customizable clauses on the usual divorce issues of child custody, support, parenting time and division of the marital estate, both assets and debts.  The philosophy embedded into the software is taken from the collaborative divorce process: discuss and negotiate prior to a formal divorce filing so that when the official pleadings are filed, it's already a "done deal", presumably with a signed settlement agreement or judgment of divorce.

While the price and the process sure is alluring, it is not for everyone.  Some couples will not be able to put their deep-seated differences aside to accommodate this software any more than they can sit through a series of marital counseling sessions.

It is nice, however, to have a collaborative model available to those couples that do not wish to spend the children's college savings on attorneys.  We shall see whether the Wevorce software ever becomes available here in Michigan.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Medical Marijuana Parent Not Disqualified for Custody

Like with the use of any other prescription medications, a parent who uses medical marijuana is not disqualified from custody in a family court according to the Michigan Attorney General.  If the pot-medicating  parent, however, exhibits behavior that is unreasonably dangerous to a minor child, the immunity provided by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act [MMMA] may not be available.

Attorney General Bill Schuette was asked for an advisory opinion by State Senator Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) on the issue of whether the MMMA can be invoked by a parent who is the subject of a child protective proceeding, and what constitutes behavior creating an unreasonable danger for a minor child.

In a well-crafted 17-page opinion, the AG zeroed-in on the specific provision of the Act dealing with pot and  children, and noting the exception to that provision.  Section 4(c) of the MMA states:

A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this Act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

As for what type of pot-related behavior constitutes the creation of such an unreasonable danger, the Act does not say.  According to the Attorney General, an individual assessment would need to take the specific circumstances of the parent and child into account.  Certainly, things like substance abuse and addiction are legitimate inquiries relative to a juvenile protective or custody proceeding.  The MMA will not provide immunity in a family court from taking such things into account.

AG Schuette opined, "the medical use of marihuana alone does not create an unreasonable danger to a child."   Schuette cautioned in the opinion, however, that if a parent's use of marijuana negatively impacts that parent's ability to properly care for a child, it could be part of the overall custody assessment.

Germane to a custody investigation is whether the parent, while high, is sufficiently functional and thus capable of parenting a minor; the child's age is an important factor; whether, once high, the parent can drive the child to safety if an emergency arises; and does the child have asthma that could be affected by second-hand marijuana smoke.

These are a few of the concerns we conjured up over here at the electronic divorce lawyer.  The best course of action, we think, is not to get high, or  take other mood altering substances, around your children.

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

False Claims in Custody Battle Will Bite You Back

Written by Family Law Lawyer Amanda Chapman

Let’s face it – it’s no surprise that emotions run high during a divorce where custody of the children is at issue.  With divorce comes uncertainty, and uncertainty regarding where your children will live, and with whom, is a nightmare for most parents.  

Sometimes, when in the midst of doing battle for those that we hold most dear, we think in terms of winning “at any cost.”  But be wary if you find yourself contemplating such thoughts – you may do yourself more harm than good.

To illustrate the point, a recent unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, Henry. Henry (decided December 22, 2011) involved a divorcing couple, Christine and Doug, and their six children.  The parents were both battling for custody of the children, which resulted in a trial held in Wayne Circuit Court. The trial court was required to contemplate the statutory “best interests” factors, which include making a determination as to the “moral fitness of the parties involved.”

In weighing the “moral fitness” best interest factor, a trial court must determine a party’s fitness as a parent, looking to the parent-child relationship and how that parent’s conduct affects that relationship.  In the Henry divorce, the trial court heard testimony from various individuals who suggested that Christine had filed false reports [involving issues of possible child abuse or neglect] with several professionals and agencies.  Ultimately, the trial court did not find Christine’s testimony credible, as the court weighed more heavily in favor of witness testimony which supported Doug’s claims that the reports were “inaccurate, manipulative, and designed to force additional investigations.

The court, in evaluating the “moral fitness” best interest factor, must determine the effect of a parent’s conduct on the relationship with their child. In this instance, the trial court deemed this factor to weigh in favor of Doug, determining that Christine’s false reports to various agencies “could have a negative effect on the children.”  The Court of Appeals, in reviewing the trial court’s decision, deferred to the trial court, as this was ultimately an issue of credibility.

The moral of this story: don’t make false claims against the other parent in an effort to make them look bad in your custody case. Not only does it waste precious resources for those who need protection, but it might ruin your credibility in the eyes of the Court. 

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.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

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