BY RYAN O'NEIL (OAKLAND)Custody Barretta v. Zhitkov, _____ Mich App _____, ______ NW2d ______, 2023, (Docket No. 364921, 365078). Oakland County Mother and Father have one minor child. Pursuant to the parties’ 2016 judgment, they were awarded joint legal and joint physical custody of the minor child with a week-on/week-off parenting time schedule. The parties had a contentious post-judgment co-parenting relationship and in 2022 a guardian ad-litem (“GAL”) was appointed.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred by not first holding an evidentiary hearing before changing custody. While the orders were titled as “temporary,” the Court of Appeals found that these orders had the practical effect of modifying Mother’s custody and parenting time. The trial court also failed to make findings as to change in circumstance/proper cause, the established custodial environment, or best interest findings.
0 Comments
by ryan o'neil (oakland)custodyKuebler v. Kuebler, _____ Mich App _____, ______ NW2d ______, 2023 (Docket No. 362488) Washtenaw County This most recent opinion is one of many opinions and orders that stem from a highly contentious matter. At the initial custody determination, Dr. Ludolph, the psychologist, found that Mother had borderline personality disorder and Father had anger management issues. Since the last order on appeal, Father was awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children. BY RYAN O'NEIL (Oakland County)CUSTODYSmith v Rotterdam, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 27, 2022 (Docket No. 357940) Dueling post-judgment motions to modify custody. The trial court found that the minor child had an established custodial environment with both parties, applied the clear and convincing standard, and found that four (4) best interest factors favored Father while none favored Mother and granted Father’s motion to sole physical custody. Mother appealed the finding that the minor child had an established custodial environment with both parents, but the Court of Appeals rejected (and was seemingly confused) by this argument since the trial court applied the higher clear and convincing standard. Second, while the trial court did not find either a change in circumstance or proper cause, it was not necessary for them to do so since the parties were seeking to modify a temporary order. The Court opined, |
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFEDITORIAL STAFFArchives
February 2024
Categories
All
|
© 2022-2023 Referees Association of Michigan
|
|