HOW The “Best Interests of the Child” Standard IS USED IN KALKASKA COUNTY DIVORCE COURT.
A. In General
Once the KALKASKA trial court makes findings on the record on whether an established custodial environment exists and determines the appropriate burden of proof, it must then apply that burden to the best interests factors. Underwood v Underwood, 163 Mich App 383, 414 NW2d 171 (1987).
SEE http://www.attorneybankert.com
The best interests of the child are the controlling consideration in custody disputes between parents, between agencies, and between third persons. MCL 722.27a. The best interests factors are set forth at MCL 722.23 (see §3.8). Before granting primary physical custody to a party in a custody determination, the trial court must consider each of the statutory factors and make specific findings on the record. Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 512 NW2d 851 (1994); Schubring v Schubring, 190 Mich App 468, 476 NW2d 434 (1991); Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 395 NW2d 65 (1986). see http://www.dumpmyspouse.com
However, this articulation requirement does not require the court to comment on every matter in evidence or every proposition argued. Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 526 NW2d 889 (1994); MacIntyre v MacIntyre (On Remand), 267 Mich App 449, 452, 705 NW2d 144 (2005). The trial court’s failure to comment cannot be construed to mean that it did not consider the evidence. Sinicropi v Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149, 729 NW2d 256 (2006).
A court’s decision regarding custody must be based on “competent evidence adduced at trial.” DeBoe v DeBoe, No 246083, 2003 Mich App LEXIS 2379 (Sept 18, 2003) (unpublished).
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Child Agreements
My name is Terry Bankert. I am a Flint Divorce lawyer. The laws though apply statewide in Divorce.
DID YOU KNOW!
DIVORCE Agreements Concerning Children
Flint Divorce Courts and your Michgian Local Divorce Court bound by the parties’ agreement regarding property settlement, but the court remains free to exercise its discretion on issues of child custody and child support. Kline; see also Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 614 NW2d 183 (2000).
The welfare of the children in Flint Divorce Court and throughout Michigan —not the claims, personal rights, or desires of the parents—is paramount in determining custody and support. Delamielleure v Belote, 267 Mich App 337, 340, 704 NW2d 746 (2005) (parenting time is right of child and obligation of parent and cannot be waived by divorce settlement); Napora v Napora, 159 Mich App 241, 406 NW2d 197 (1986) (trial court not bound by parties’ agreement to modify custody order); Puzzuoli v Puzzuoli, 3 Mich App 594, 143 NW2d 162 (1966) (custody).
Other Michigan cases have enforced agreements regarding child-related issues in specific situations. See, e.g., Dick v Dick, 210 Mich App 576, 583, 588, 534 NW2d 185 (1995) (parties may agree to binding arbitration of child support and custody); Koron v Melendy, 207 Mich App 188, 523 NW2d 870 (1994) (implicit in trial court’s acceptance of parties’ custody and parenting time agreement is court’s determination that arrangement is in child’s best interests); Rossow v Aranda, 206 Mich App 456, 457, 522 NW2d 874 (1994) (mother bound by stipulation transferring physical custody of eldest daughter to father, absent showing of duress or coercion).
A Flint Divorce party may not disclaim parenthood by stipulation. Hawkins v Murphy, 222 Mich App 664, 565 NW2d 674 (1997). However, the Divorce courts statewide may determine the husband’s paternity rights during the divorce proceeding,
DID YOU KNOW!
DIVORCE Agreements Concerning Children
Flint Divorce Courts and your Michgian Local Divorce Court bound by the parties’ agreement regarding property settlement, but the court remains free to exercise its discretion on issues of child custody and child support. Kline; see also Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 614 NW2d 183 (2000).
The welfare of the children in Flint Divorce Court and throughout Michigan —not the claims, personal rights, or desires of the parents—is paramount in determining custody and support. Delamielleure v Belote, 267 Mich App 337, 340, 704 NW2d 746 (2005) (parenting time is right of child and obligation of parent and cannot be waived by divorce settlement); Napora v Napora, 159 Mich App 241, 406 NW2d 197 (1986) (trial court not bound by parties’ agreement to modify custody order); Puzzuoli v Puzzuoli, 3 Mich App 594, 143 NW2d 162 (1966) (custody).
Other Michigan cases have enforced agreements regarding child-related issues in specific situations. See, e.g., Dick v Dick, 210 Mich App 576, 583, 588, 534 NW2d 185 (1995) (parties may agree to binding arbitration of child support and custody); Koron v Melendy, 207 Mich App 188, 523 NW2d 870 (1994) (implicit in trial court’s acceptance of parties’ custody and parenting time agreement is court’s determination that arrangement is in child’s best interests); Rossow v Aranda, 206 Mich App 456, 457, 522 NW2d 874 (1994) (mother bound by stipulation transferring physical custody of eldest daughter to father, absent showing of duress or coercion).
A Flint Divorce party may not disclaim parenthood by stipulation. Hawkins v Murphy, 222 Mich App 664, 565 NW2d 674 (1997). However, the Divorce courts statewide may determine the husband’s paternity rights during the divorce proceeding,
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Divorce and child support.
Joe the plumber on Presidentaial politics and Madonnas latest divorce led the news on 10/14/08. But to you the most important news in Kalkaska County may be your pending divorce case. Are you ready? Did you know that the law of child support has change. Every case can now be reviewd to recalculate based upon the number of overnites by the non custodil parent.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Kalkaska County
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
