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

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

Uniform Collaborative Divorce Law Act Passes Michigan Senate

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

Readers of this blog will recognize our commitment to the collaborative divorce process.  Whenever possible, given the circumstances and personal dynamics of the parties, it usually is the best way to go in family court.

The collaborative divorce model is where a married couple meets with a team of family law professionals [case facilitator, family counselor, financial planner] before filing for divorce, hopefully resolving all issues in a signed settlement agreement.  The process is collaborative rather than adversarial.

Across Michigan and our nation, there is a steady and growing movement toward favoring the collaborative model; the adversarial process is being relegated to a last resort.

Over the past four years, the Uniform Collaborative Divorce Law has been sweeping across the state legislatures.  Recently, the Michigan Senate passed the model act, sending it along to the House Judiciary Committee.

Because the collaborative divorce model is so distinct from the adversarial process, the uniform law calls for standards and training for lawyers wanting to add collaborative divorce to their practice.  The bill calls for the State Court Administrative Office to develop the training and lawyer qualification standards called for in the model act.

For its part, the SCAO does not want to be tasked with training the lawyers and wonders how it will pay for training and enforcing the standards.  Unlike the other states that have passed the model act, Michigan would be the only state requiring training standards.

These standards come to us from the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee of the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law Section.

What is wrong with some additional training for family law lawyers, especially in thrust of the collaborative divorce resolution process.  In our opinion, this is a good law which will hopefully pass through the House and become law.

Divorce needs more collaboration and less opposition.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Divorce: There's An App For That Too

Were here at the electronic divorce attorney are not big fans of digitizing personal therapy in an app.  Or the divorce process for that matter.

Today's Freep touted the article Digital Divorce, profiling some nifty digital cell phone apps targeting couples going through a divorce.  Ever since a 20-something Minnesota lawyer created a cell phone app 5-years ago that calculates a parent's child support obligation, we've been seeing this kind of thing in droves.

The Freep's Katie Humphrey notes that there are hundreds of divorce-related apps; some of them even aid spouses with cheating hearts.  Go figure.

But just because its now available in an app, does not make the divorce process any easier.  Family law attorneys across Oakland County warn against substituting experience and professional skills with a self-help app designed by a techie with some minimal knowledge of divorce and family law issues.

Given the complexity of relationships and the divorce process, Ms. Humphrey rightly advises caution when relying on an apps for advice and information.  We also agree that most of the divorce-related apps, all with few reviews to offer market insight, are really just digital snake oil.

One of the apps featured in Humphrey's article, "The Grass is Greener" does seem to hold some value.  It is basically a marriage assessment tool, complete with a 39-question quiz spouses take to gain insight into the type of professionals they may need to hire in order to either: a) save their marriage, or; b) navigate the divorce process.

On balance, however, we are not worried that our lawyers will be replaced by apps anytime soon; no sooner than family court judges will be replaced by robots.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@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

Conscious Uncoupling in Los Angeles

Gwyneth Paltrow: Recently
and Consciously Uncoupled.

Among some of the more enlightened Hollywood luminaries, it's not a divorce; it is a "conscious uncoupling".  This is the term veteran actress Gwyneth Paltrow used on her website this week to announce the split with Chris Martin, her rocker-husband of more than ten years.

This, er, somewhat New Age phrase is the kinder gentler term for divorce.  Pop-psychotherapist and author Katherine Woodward Thomas takes credit for coining the phrase.  In fact, Ms. Thomas claims that she purchased the URL for this catchy term immediately upon hearing it for the first time in a discussion about a friend's divorce.

The catch phrase sounds like a synonym for "collaborative divorce"; a commonly-used phrase in the modern divorce industry.  Apparently, the idea behind a conscious uncoupling is that the parties simply agree to part ways amicably, using child-friendly low-stress tools.  Precisely the idea behind a collaborative divorce.

The collaborative divorce process involves sitting down with a psychologist or marriage counselor, a collaborative lawyer, and perhaps a financial consultant  -not necessarily at the same time-  to identify and resolve issues prior to subjecting the family to the jurisdiction of a family court with its deadlines and powers over purse and person.

On the West Coast, there are a few pop-professionals making a buck from the process.  Ms. Thomas is among them, offering a 5-week "conscious uncoupling" course on the Internet for nearly $300.  When Ms. Paltrow's announcement, and now the "conscious uncoupling" phrase, went viral, she credited her own holistic doctor rather than Ms. Thomas; a lapse pointedly noted by the psychotherapist in the interview she gave to the NYT.

A low-stress divorce, by whatever name, is a worthy goal.  But buyers should beware before spending money on a web-based course taught by someone with a track record of failed relationships.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Senate Bill Impugns Medical Marijuana for Custodial Parents

Over the five years since Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act was passed through voter initiative in November 2008, we've had many cases in family court where a parent's medical marijuana use was raised as an issue in the case.  Generally, family court judges do not shine to pot smoking parents.

Now, the Michigan Senate has taken-up the cause with a bill introduced by Senator Rick Jones, a former Sheriff from Eaton County.  The bill, enrolled in the Judiciary Committee, gives a family court judge the power to review a parent's pot use, even when sanctioned by a properly issued medical marijuana card.

If passed, Senate Bill 736 would provide that when a judge makes a finding that a card-carrying medical marijuana patient's use of pot interferes with that parent's ability, judgment, or skill to parent her child, then the judge could order any of the following remedies:

• Compel the patient to execute a release so the court could review the underlying medical condition on which the medical marijuana card is based, and allow the court to examine the relationship between the patient and the qualifying physician that endorsed the parent's pot use; 

• Compel the parent to submit to an independent medical examination to determine whether the parent's continued use of medical marijuana remains necessary or whether an alternative medication would be in the "parent's best interest"; [Wow]

• Enjoin the parent from the continued use of medical marijuana if, upon the court's review of the parent's medical records, it appears that continued use of medical marijuana is not in that parent's best interests; [also Wow]

• Allow the parent to continue her use of medical marijuana under the "qualified physician's directive", and under the continued review of the patient/parent's medical records for the duration of the custody case, "to determine whether there is reason for concern" that the parent's continued use of medical marijuana interferes with that parent's ability, judgment, or skill to parent the child; and 

• The ominous "catchall" of issuing, "any other order that the Court considers necessary that is otherwise within the authority of the court in the best interests of the child."

Putting a medicated parent under the microscope in family court is nothing new.  But this proposed legislation, which we here at this blog do not see passing, would drag the family court judge and the treating physician into the medical marijuana arena.

In the unlikely even that this bill passes into law, just sit back and watch the sparks fly...

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com