Relocating With a Child After Divorce

In Michigan, a divorced parent must seek approval from the Court if they wish to move their child out of state. If both parents agree to the relocation, the Court generally grants it. If one parent objects to the relocation, the Court may grant the request if the parent seeking the relocation can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the relocation is warranted after reviewing the following factors:

1) Will the change improve the quality of life for the child and parent
2) The degree to which each parent has complied with their parenting time schedule
3) The degree to which the court can modify parenting time to preserve & foster the relationship
4) The extent to which the opposing parent is motivated by financial reasons
5) Domestic violence, regardless of whether it involves the child

The Court of Appeals recently evaluated a relocation case in Davenport v Mosholder, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 9, 2010 (Docket No. 295852).

In Davenport v Mosholder, a relocation request was filed by the mother who wished to move from Michigan to Georgia. The testimony revealed that the child generally resided with his parents on alternating weeks. The trial court eventually concluded that the child had an established custodial environment with both parents, but that the proposed relocation would not alter that established custodial environment. Further, the trial court indicated that while the father would have less overnights after the move, the reduction was not significant and the child would still have daily access to his father, thus maintaining the established custodial environment.

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with this determination, indicating that the move to Georgia would clearly alter the established custodial environment. In an interesting analysis, the Court of Appeals relied on evidence that the father had almost daily contact with his child, coached his sports, served as a scout den leader, and generally was active in the child’s life on a daily basis, despite having the child only half of the year on an overnight basis. The Court of Appeals found that daily contact via webcam when the child relocated to Georgia was not an effective substitute for the clearly established custodial environment between father and son as it existed in Michigan.

The Court of Appeals recognized that an established custodial environment can exist with a parent even if that parent does not have the majority of the overnight parenting time. The Court acknowledged that active daily involvement can be the basis for an established custodial environment.


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Jail for Dad of 23 kids: over $500,000 owed in child support

A recent Detroit Free Press article and ABC News article discussed the case of a Western Michigan dad of 23 kids who was sentenced to jail for owing over $500,000 in child support.

First, this case is obviously unique, as he has fathered over 20 children. It is also unique because of the excessive amount of overdue child support. However, prison sentences are not as uncommon as you may think.

In Michigan, child support obligations are enforced by not only the courts, but also the local prosecutors and even the attorney general’s office. For non-payment of child support, the Friend of the Court can garnish your tax refunds, suspend your drivers license, file a lien against your property, report the debt to credit agencies, garnish a private pension or retirement, and issue a bench warrant for your arrest. Additionally, in cases where the amount of support owing is excessive, the Friend of the Court can refer the case to the local prosecutor for felony charges. Felony non-support cases can result in jail sentences, as evidenced by the results of the case involving the deadbeat dad with 23 kids.

What people don’t always realize is that child support is modifiable in Michigan. The Friend of the Court will conduct an automatic review of child support every 36 months. However, if there is a substantial change in income, a parent can file a request for modification and have it reviewed, even if it hasn’t been 36 months.

The lesson is clear—if there is a substantial change in income, it is important to request modification of child support. If the person paying child support becomes delinquent, the penalties can be excessive and extreme, and, in some cases, avoidable.

You can read the Detroit Free Press article here: Man linked to 23 kids gets prison in child support case

You can read the ABC News article here: Ultra Deadbeat Dad gets 23 Months in Jail


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

What is Divorce Mediation?

The divorce trial of Dodgers’ owner Frank McCourt & his wife Jamie has taken a brief pause so that the couple and their attorneys can go through Mediation today in order to try to resolve and settle their divorce.

What exactly is Mediation?

Mediation in divorce cases is a private session between the couple, their lawyers, and a neutral Mediator, usually a lawyer who has been trained in Mediation, where they freely and openly discuss settlement of all or some of the issues in the divorce. In Michigan, everything that happens in Mediation is confidential, and offers and counter-offers exchanged in Mediation cannot be used in the Divorce trial or further proceedings. The Mediator’s role is to encourage the couple to work out their differences and come to a mutual resolution of all issues. If an agreement is reached, it is reduced to a final writing, a Divorce Judgment, and entered by the Court, thus ending the divorce.

Many divorce cases resolve in Mediation, and it is by far a less expensive alternative than a divorce trial. However, even in the middle of trial, like the McCourt’s trial, Mediation is also a tool to try to resolve issues that remain outstanding and disputed.

You can read the LA Times article here: Frank McCourt attorney's admission sets the stage for a possible settlement


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 
.

The Costly Lesson of Full Disclosure to Friend of the Court

In Michigan, child support is modifiable upon change of circumstances, and in order to modify the amount of child support, you must file a motion/request with Friend of the Court. A referee in Friend of the Court then reviews each parent’s income, health care costs, child care costs, and parenting time and makes a recommendation based upon those facts. Once a recommendation is made, each parent has an opportunity to object to the recommendation, and if there is an objection filed, the matter goes to the Judge for a formal hearing.

So what happens if during the entire process one of the parents is less than forthcoming with their income information? What happens if one parent deliberately misstates their income?

The Court of Appeals recently discussed this exact situation in Keinz v Keinz, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 16, 2010 (Docket No. 292781).

In Keinz v Keinz, a modification request was filed by the mother 3 years after the divorce was final. At the referee hearing, the father not only stated that his gross annual income was $41k, he produced a letter from his employer indicating the same thing. The referee made a recommendation, and the mother objected to that recommendation. Eventually a full evidentiary hearing was held by the Judge, at which time it was discovered that the father actually earned $81k annually, double the income he asserted at the referee hearing.

The father’s justification was that he was working overtime, but that due to his health, he didn’t expect to work any more overtime. However, it was discovered that at the time that he asserted that he would only earn $41k annually, he had already earned $40k and only half the year was over.

The mother asked the Court to make the father pay for her attorney fees stating that his position/defense was frivolous, which means that the father asserted a position that he knew was not true. While the trial court initially denied the mother’s request for attorney fees, the Court of Appeals determined that the father deliberately deceived the referee by offering evidence that he knew was not true. The Court of Appeals determined that the father’s position in the child support hearings was truly frivolous and because the mother ultimately prevailed with a higher child support amount (albeit after numerous court hearings), the father was responsible for paying the mother’s attorney fees.

The cost for deliberately deceiving Friend of the Court: paying for two attorneys.




If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.
 

Re-Married... With Children

You’ve been divorced for a while now, and all of a sudden your ex remarries to someone you feel is a bad influence on the children. Or, you’ve just remarried yourself and can provide a more stable household. That should be enough to get you back into court to have the judge re-evaluate custody and parenting time, right?

Nope.

In Michigan, before the Court can consider changes in parenting time or custody, the person requesting the change must demonstrate “proper cause” or a “change in circumstances.” While instinctively one may think that a remarriage of a former spouse is a change in circumstances, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided differently in Allen v Belonga, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 20, 2010 (Docket No. 295753).

Without reviewing the facts of that case in particular, what is important to note is that the Michigan Court of Appeals indicated that a parent’s remarriage is generally a “normal life change” and does not rise to the level of “change in circumstances” required under Michigan law. The Michigan Court of Apeals indicated that the evidence must show that a “material change” has occurred and that this “material change” has or will have an effect on the child.

Changes in custody and parenting time are difficult to request and the courts enforce the evidentiary standards for each particular change requested. It is extremely important, throughout your divorce, to understand that your agreement as to custody and parenting time will be binding and cannot be changed by the court at just your request. It is important to have good legal counsel through this process so you understand the long-term effects of your decisions and agreements.



If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

Divorce could Dissolve the Dodgers

The divorce of Frank & Jamie McCourt has become even more heated as the couple has mutually asserted that each of them doesn’t have enough money, and bills are piling up sky high. The Judge handling their divorce has indicated that if they continue to bicker about money, he may order that the asset they are arguing about, the Dodgers, will be sold.

Can the Judge actually do that? Can the Judge order that the Dodgers be sold to the highest bidder? Absolutely!

With the downward trend of the economy, more and more couples are fighting about debt rather than assets, and most property or assets are under water and have negative equity. Sometimes even when there is property with positive equity, the debts are so overwhelming that the property has to be sold to pay off the debt.

Family Courts and Judges have the power to order what is fair and equitable, and can make decisions on how property is to be valued, divided and distributed. They can make these decisions even to the lament of Dodgers fans.

It is unlikely that the Dodgers will actually be sold because of the divorce—but not because the Court or the Judge lacks the power to order it. It was likely a serious warning from the Judge to the McCourts to stop their bickering and focus on what is truly important so that the issues can be resolved.

You can read the LA Times article here: Judge in McCourts’ divorce case talks of Dodgers Sale




If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.

 

Michigan launches Pilot Program: Lawyer-Free Divorces

The Michigan Supreme Court has authorized the launch of a new pilot program in Clinton and Gratiot County for an Informal Divorce proceeding for couples divorcing who cannot afford attorneys.

Judge Michelle Rick of Clinton County Circuit Court obtained approval for the pilot program, and will launch this new program for 3 years in both Clinton and Gratiot county. The program was developed in response to a growing number of individuals who were filing for divorce without attorneys, had very simple or uncomplicated issues to resolve in their divorce, and also significantly lacked funds to hire an attorney because they had no or low income. The majority of these couples did not own any property together, they did not have any pensions or retirement accounts, nor was there any domestic violence in their relationship. The majority of these couples had children, debt, and they completely lacked the financial means to hire an attorney because they were unemployed or at the poverty level.

The Informal Divorce pilot program will be an option for couples in Clinton and Gratiot County as long as they meet the criteria, which means that they have no income or very low income, they do not have any property together, they have minor children and there is no domestic violence. The couple getting divorced can elect to proceed under this new option, which includes meeting personally with the Judge in order to work out the issues in the divorce. The parties can opt out of this program at any time, or can be removed from the program if the program does not benefit their case.

The pilot program for Lawyer-Free Divorces was implemented to address the extreme financial distress of some couples filing for divorce, so that those couples are not lost in the system because they cannot afford legal counsel. The pilot program clearly recognizes the importance of having good legal counsel while going through a divorce, especially with minor children.

The Informal Divorce pilot program is anticipated to begin in Gratiot and Clinton County around September 1, 2010.

You can read the Detroit Free Press article here: 2 Michigan Counties will Test Informal Divorces


If you are interested in learning more, please call Wendy Alton at 734-665-4441 or email her at walton@psedlaw.com. More information about her firm, Pear Sperling Eggan & Daniels, P.C., can be found here: www.psedlaw.com.