Step-Parent Adoption Goes to the Michigan Supreme Court

By: Timothy P. Flynn

Sometimes, in the post-judgment phase of a divorcee's life, things can go haywire.  The divorce process can push good parents "off-the-grid".

There is a statute in Michigan that provides for the termination of a divorcee's parental rights if that parent neglects to pay child support and fails to communicate with the children for two years.  For this to occur, the other parent must re-marry and the new spouse must petition for the termination of parental rights as part of a step-parent adoption proceeding.

In a case just recently accepted for briefing and argument by the Michigan Supreme Court, the concept of legal custody within the context of the step-parent adoption statute will be decided.  It could come down to the High Court's interpretation of how the legislature used the words, "a" and "the".

The Kent County case, In Re: ARJ, takes a look at whether the re-married parent must have sole legal custody in order for the step-parent adoption petition to be granted.  The case is significant to the extent that it will interpret this important statute as well as possibly provide additional meaning to the phrase "legal custody"; a phrase over which many a battle have been fought in the family courts throughout Michigan over the decades.

The Kent County Family Court terminated the father's rights after a two day trial.  This termination was reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals which basically held that the parental termination was done in error because both parents had joint legal custody.

So here we have a parent that has basically disappeared for the requisite two years  -no support, no contact-  but who clings to his parental rights through the label in the judgment of divorce awarding him joint legal custody.

In its order granting leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision, the Supreme Court specifically identified one of the issues to be briefed, argued and decided as:

Whether the phrase 'legal custody' in [the step-parent adoption statute] is synonymous with the concept of joint custody in the Child Custody Act, whereby 'the parents share decision-making authority as to the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child...

Our High Court also expressly invited the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law Section and the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers to file amicus curiae briefs in the case.

Stay tuned to see how the Michigan Supreme Court interprets this crucial phrase; we will track the case for you.  The decision will likely have important implications for divorce proceedings that involve the custody of minor children.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,family court,family law,Michigan Court of Appeals,Michigan Supreme Court,step-parent adoption

Adultery and the Paternity Act

The Sixth Commandment proscribes adultery unequivocally: "Thou shall not commit adultery".  Many people consider the Ten Commandments to be the laws of God.  The subsequent laws of man, however, do not always follow suit.

In 2011, the Michigan Legislature amended [rewrote] the Paternity Act to open the door, slightly, for an unwed biological father who sires a child with a married woman.  The bachelor's parenting rights, however, are contingent upon the consent of the mother.  

The new paternity laws have given rise to a few cases that have garnered media attention.  Fathers that have availed themselves of the new law in order to correct one of the more painful gaps in our tranditional family laws; denying standing to any putative father who's baby-momma was married at the time of birth. 

The new paternity leglislation basically thanks the bio-dad for his sperm donation, but does not afford him any substantive parenting rights without the mother's consent.  If the bachelor can offer some proof to the family court that he was clueless about the baby momma's marital status, he has standing to bring a claim under the paternity act.

Aaron Grimes filed a case when his relationship blew-up.  Grimes conducted a two-year relationship with a woman he knew was married.  The couple took trips together, attended family functions, and otherwise held themselves out as a couple.  According to Grimes, she never wore her wedding ring.

When the baby was born, the mother had a change of heart according to Grimes; she reconciled with her husband, hired a lawyer, and has dened Grimes any contact with his son. 

Father's subsequent paternity cause of action was immediately dismissed by the Wayne County Circuit Court.  Dad is considering challenging the provisions of the new paternity act.

Compare Grimes' situation with Daniel Quinn, who, unlike Grimes, was able to claim cluelessness about his baby mamma's marital status; she was [secretly] married to a man doing time in prison.  Under the present legislative scheme, the bachelor's knowledge of the marriage is the deciding factor.   Unless the alleged father is in the dark, the baby momma is driving the bus.

So the difference goes to the heart of modern adultery.  To commit the sin, indeed, the felony, of adultery, one must presumably have the "mens rea"; the proverbial guilty mind.  If you do not know if your woman is married, are you nevertheless comitting the sin of adultery in the eyes of God; in the eyes of the law?

This is what the Michigan legislature has recently contended with; an imperfect piece of legislation, to be sure.  We here at the Law Blogger wish that the new act was more direct in advising the court to consider the best interests of the child rather than the relative standing of the parents.  Also, the paternity act should first "disestablish" the rights of the baby momma's husband prior to allowing an alleged father to proceed on a paternity claim.

The one-year limitation for a claim to be filed seems quick and too arbitrary; often, an alleged or putative father would have no reason to suspect his baby's momma is married.  Closing the door so fast on a bio-dad seems harsh.

Thus, the drama is destined to continue.  To men: the best course of action is to be very sure of the marital status of your partner prior to beginning the procreation process.  If you are in the position of Mr. Grimes, however, and you know that your partner is married, you need to also know that the current paternity act allows her to drive the bus when the baby comes.

To women: be sure to keep your child's best interests in mind and ask whether it is better in the long-run for your baby to know his or her true paternity. 

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Aaron Grimes,adultery,child custody,Daniel Quinn,family court,family law lawyer,paternity act,Ten Commandments,Wayne County Family Court

Family Court and Medical Marijuana

With so many folks, er, "medicating" themselves with prescription pot, you just had to see this one coming: the collision between medical marijuana and the family courts.

A California appeals court has ruled that a medical marijuana using father of a toddler is no longer required to exercise his parenting time under supervision.  The lower court found that father's use of pot placed the child at risk of "serious physical harm or illness".

The family had long been on the radar of Los Angeles County's Department of Children and Family Services.  During their investigation, DCFS interviewed father, a cement mason, who admitted to using medical marijuana for his pain and arthritis, but also stated that he never used marijuana around his toddler son.

DCFS authorized a case in the LA County family court alleging that father's legal use of marijuana rendered him occasionally incapable of  providing care for his then 18-month old child; the family court  agreed.

But not the California Court of Appeals, which held that the DCFS presented a mere scintilla of evidence, relying on inferences that amounted to speculation and conjecture regarding the correlation between the safety of the child and father's pot use.  Further, the intermediate appellate court found that DCFS failed to provide any evidence that father was unable to care for his son due to substance abuse.

The Court of Appeals' opinion is legally significant as it makes a distinction between substance use and abuse, defining the latter pursuant to the DSM-IV-TR, which defines substance abuse as:

[a] maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period: (1) recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household); (2) recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use); (3) recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct); and (4) continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights). (See DSM-IV-TR, at p. 199.)

In the California case, the DCFS simply did not make this showing.  In fact, the appeals court noted that the opposite was the case; the father was gainfully employed, had a legitimate reason to use pot, and controlled his use, keeping the substance and his use of it away from his child.

We here at the Law Blogger wonder how long it will take before such a case percolates through the court system here in Michigan, resulting in a  published and thus binding decision.  We have had the occasion to represent parents accused by the other parent of using medical marijuana during their parenting time to the detriment of the children.

In Michigan, the medical marijuana act provides some guidance in this regard:

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

This is a drama-laden issue to be sure.  Stay tuned for guaranteed future developments.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: California,child custody,family court,medical marijuana,parenting time,supervised parenting time

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

Read more »

Posted in: adoption,child custody,Child Custody Act,divorce,family court,family law,family law lawyer,Michigan Court of Appeals,Wayne County Circuit Court

Double-Dipping on Alimony

The original "double-dip".

Many of us, when we think of “double-dipping,” immediately envision George Costanza nonchalantly eating chips and dip at a boring party. He bites the chip, dips, bites again, dips again, oblivious and happy.

Meanwhile, a fellow party-goer and disgusted onlooker cannot contain the impulse to put a stop to this obvious dip-contaminating behavior and confronts George. Inane hilarity ensues; check it out here.  [Note: Post-Seinfeld generation and long-time Seinfeld enthusiasts – you’re welcome.]

Double-dipping, in the world of family law, typically refers to the way assets are valued in the division of a marital estate.  A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Loutts v Loutts, addresses this issue of “double-dipping” in the spousal support context.

This divorce case originated in the Washtenaw County family court.  One of the main issues in the case was how to determine an appropriate spousal support award where the marital assets included a business valued at more than a quarter million dollars.

The husband started, owned, and operated the business. When the family court awarded half of the business value to his wife, the question became: what income should be imputed to husband now that half the value of the business had been conveyed to wife?

When determining spousal support, the parties’ incomes must be determined so that the family court may decide how to equitably balance the incomes. The Michigan Court of Appeals has articulated a balancing test such that:

the primary purpose of spousal support is to balance the parties’ incomes and needs such that neither party will be impoverished, and spousal support must be based on what is just and reasonable considering the circumstances.

The family court can only perform this balance test on a case-by-case basis – typically unwilling to follow any bright-line rules for determining the rate and term of a spousal support award.

The family court in Loutts, after awarding wife half the value of the business, imputed approximately $130,000 income to husband.  This imputed income was utilized to “equitably balance” the incomes of the parties.

In doing so, the family court judge relied on case law to determine that “the value of a business may be used for the purpose of either property distribution or spousal support, but not both.” On appeal, wife argued that the court should have used the full-value of the business in determining her spousal support award.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, remanding this issue back to the family court for a re-determination of spousal support based upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  In their opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that the trial court’s reliance upon the Heller v Heller case was misplaced to the extent that, “the appellate court stated that its determination that a double-dip was inequitable was based on the facts of that case alone and was not a determination that double-dipping is never permissible.”  [The emphasis is ours.]

The obvious "take-away" from this recent case is that, when it comes to determining spousal support, bright-line rules simply do not apply. Rather, the family court judge should consider a variety of factors, including: the conduct of the parties, their ability to work, their ages, needs, health, present situation, prior standard of living, ability to pay alimony, and general principles of equity.

Double-dipping might be ok – given specific factual and equitable circumstances.  Exactly what those circumstances are remains a fuzzy, mutable, arguable enigma, ripe for the art of legal persuasion.

The one constant is that each case before the family court is unique and should be considered so by the judge.

Also of note in the Loutts decision is that the Court of Appeals wasted no time in upholding a 3-year non-compete provision that applied to the business and to which wife agreed, but appealed.  The Court held that you get what you bargain for.

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: alimony,double dipping,family court,George Costanza,Michigan Court of Appeals,Seinfeld,spousal support,Washtenaw County Family Court

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

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,family court,family law,Janet Jenkins,Lisa Miller,Mennonite,same sex parents,same sex union,Vermont

Military Divorce: Part II

This is the second post in our series on the topic of military divorce.

Jurisdiction

Every court in the United States has its own laws about jurisdiction meaning rules regarding what cases the court is allowed to hear. One form of jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction—does the court have the right to compel a person or organization to appear before it and pass judgment? Another form is subject matter jurisdiction—does the court have the right to hear this particular case about this particular topic?

A court of a state where either spouse legally resides, or where the service member is stationed, can have jurisdiction over the divorce.

Retirement Pay/Benefits

As was discussed before, the state court is what decides the extent of benefits the former spouse of a service member is entitled to receive. Depending on the state, marital property from a divorce can be divided equitably (i.e., what the court considers “fair”) or it can be divided equally (a 50/50 split). The Department of Defense though, places a ceiling on benefit awards to former spouses.

No more than 50% of a service member’s benefits can be paid out to former spouses, even if a) the divorce decree states otherwise or b) the service member has more than one ex-spouse. It’s first come, first served, so if the first ex-wife was already awarded 50% of the member’s benefits, then any subsequent ex-wives will be denied a portion of the service member’s pay, regardless of what her divorce decree says. This can come as a shock to many and is an important thing to be aware of if your spouse is on his or her second marriage.

One more jurisdictional wrinkle should be addressed. In order for a court to issue an enforceable order regarding a service member’s retirement pay, it must have personal jurisdiction over the service member. By way of example, if a spouse files for divorce in her home state of Georgia, but Georgia has no personal jurisdiction over the service member spouse (no domicile, no residence or no consent), then the Georgia court is not able to enforce any order over the disposition of the military benefits.

Garnishments and Child Support

Each of the military services have regulations which require members to “provide adequate support” to family members. The problem comes with implementation; no branch of the military has the authority to force an individual to pay such support against his or her will.

There is no court martial equivalent to Michigan's felony non-support.

The best way of ensuring you receive the child or spousal support that you are due is by obtaining a court order from the family court in your county. This includes “temporary support orders,” that a court can issue pending a final resolution of your divorce. If a civilian court has issued a formal order and a member of the military still fails to pay, you are then permitted to return to court and obtain or garnishment of your spouse’s wages.

42 USC § 659 is the federal law that gives state courts jurisdiction to order garnishments of wages from military salaries and benefits. Though state law determines the procedure for how to obtain a garnishment order, federal law dictates how the garnishment order is applied to military pay.

Unless state law specifies a lesser amount, federal law provides a limit of 50% of the member’s total disposable earnings for any workweek if the member is currently supporting a second family (spouse or child) and 60% if the member is not supporting a second family. The percentage may be increased by 5% if the child support (or spousal support) arrearage is 12 weeks or more.

42 USC § 665 gives jurisdiction to state courts over military members for child support proceedings. Section 665 has the added provision of requiring that no action shall be taken regarding the garnishment of wages of a service member until the member subject to the child support proceeding has either consulted with a Judge Advocate General, or until 30 days have passed after the service member was given proper notice of the child support proceeding in instances where such a consultation was not possible.

In the last post of this series, we will address adultery and other common divorce-related problems in the context of the active soldier.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: court martial,divorce lawyer,family court,family law,military divorce,Uniform Code of Military Justice

Boyfriend's Background Check Refusal is Just Cause for Custody Modification

In this modern day, it is very important to know with whom your children are associating.  Danger lurks everywhere, including in the home next door, down the street, across town, or across the country.

Earlier this week, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion for publication [meaning that it now binds all lower courts] in a case from the Newago County Family Court.  The case, Mitchell v Mitchell, holds that a Mother's refusal to abide by a family court's ruling to provide a background check on her live-in boyfriend is "just cause" to modify custody.

In Mitchell, the parents divorced and Mother eventually moved to Texas.  Apparently, Mom's boyfriend was instrumental in the all-too-common process of alienation directed at the non-relocating parent.  Mom did not fire-up the Skype and botched a few Texas to Michigan trips, as ordered by the family court at the time it granted leave for the relocation.

Most importantly, however, Mom and her boyfriend refused to provide the court-ordered background check.  This proved fatal to her custody case and now, Dad has the kids.  What a mess.

From time to time, our law firm gets cases where one parent, in moving on to other relationships, exhibits risky behavior relative to the selection of his or her live-in partner.  In such cases, what can the other parent do; just sit back and wait for the damage to be done?

Now, thanks to the published Mitchell decision, one safeguard that can be requested is for the family court to order a background check of the individual.  If used properly, this device will provide some information that would otherwise be unavailable.

A competing concern is, of course, the privacy of the individual.  This ruling can, and no doubt will, be used offensively and improperly as often as it is used in the fashion intended by the 3-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals.

All we here at the Law Blogger can say about that is: is he or she really worth it?  Best to err on the side of caution for the safety of the children.

In our practice, we routinely counsel clients to take it slow when it comes to introducing young children to the new "significant other".  Divorce is unsettling enough; the new person is most often seen by the kids, even when nice, as a threat.  They may repress their anxiety in order to gain approval from the relocating parent.

What a mess we can make right in our own kitchens.

The best defense to all of this is to exercise good judgment and to err on the side of putting the kids first; something that Kate Mitchell was found not to have done.  In so doing, she has unwittingly handed us family law attorneys a defensive weapon which can be wielded in the protection of the children.

Post Note:  Since this post, I learned that my friend and colleague here in Oakland County, Daniel Victor, has been hired by Mom, Kate Mitchell, and has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.  Great case to land on appeal.  Of course, an opposing brief was filed by Dad's family court lawyer, Melissa K. Dykman.

While no stranger to the Supreme Court Justices, Mr. Victor will have a tough road convincing four of them to reverse the Court of Appeals.  Not so sure I'm wishing him luck on his effort(s) in this one either folks...

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,Daniel Victor,domicile,family court,family law lawyer,John Mitchell,Kate Mitchell,Michigan Court of Appeals,Newago County,relocation

What Makes a Good Family Court Judge?

Attorney Henry S. Gornbein

This post is from the Huffington Post's Divorce Blog.  The author is Henry S. Gornbein, a colleague of ours from Oakland County that specializes in divorce and family law and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.  In this post, Henry really captures the critical elements of a good family court judge.

Here is what Henry had to say on the subject:

In over forty years of practicing family law, I have appeared before hundreds of different judges. I have found that some are rude, arrogant, and suffer from what is known as black robe syndrome. This means that they have forgotten -- or never knew -- what it was like to practice law, and have a holier than thou attitude. Most judges are considerate, will listen, and will try to resolve issues in cases.

Here are some of my thoughts on the attributes of a good judge in family law:

1.       A judge should remember that he or she may also be divorced. I have represented judges in their divorces before, and they are human just like everybody else.

2.       A good judge should listen to the arguments of attorneys and show compassion.

3.       A good judge should not lose control of his or her court room.

4.       A judge should not let arguments go on endlessly, and give everyone a chance to speak. The judge should also know when to cut arguments off in court.

5.       A good judge should be fair and not biased.

6.       A good judge should be decisive. One of the most frustrating things for attorneys are judges who will take matters under advisement, or fail to come up with a ruling. People need rulings so that they can go on with their lives. Even if an attorney or client disagrees with the ruling, it is better to have a ruling than not to have any decision made by the court.

7.       Judges should be on time. If court is set for 8:30 or 9:00 a.m., judges should be prompt. One of the most frustrating things for litigants and their attorneys is to sit around for hours on end waiting for a judge who does not start court promptly.

8.      Some judges will refuse to talk to attorneys in chambers about a case. I think that is wrong. I feel very strongly that a meeting with attorneys through a pre-trial, where a judge will listen to some of the key issues and then send a signal, can lead to a settlement. I also believe that a good judge will set up meetings in order to settle cases rather than just saying, "if you can't settle, then call your first witness." Trials should be a last resort, not a first resort. A good judge knows that.

9.       A good judge should always be in control of his or her court room and docket, but also should not be punitive or refuse to allow people to have their day in court. There is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Cases that are set for trial which are continually adjourned because of court docket conflicts or other reasons, help no one. While I believe that there should be reasonable adjournments granted when an attorney requests one, there should not be unlimited adjournments of a hearing or trial of a case.

10.   I have found over the years that if the judge will start a trial, listen to the parties, allow some evidence, and permit the litigants to get whatever he or she has off his or her chest -- the case can often be settled. Getting that day in court, getting a chance to speak and feeling that a litigant is heard can often lead to a resolution of a case without the need to go through an entire trial. I have had judges over the years who would give people a chance to speak in an informal manner, and then get down to try and settle the case. Letting someone be heard, letting someone feel that his or her thoughts and wishes are important, is a good way to lead to a resolution of a case.

11.    A good judge should show respect for the attorneys and for the litigants, and a good judge should expect respect in return.

12.    In our multi-cultural, social and ethnic society, a judge should be sensitive to religious, ethnic, racial, and cultural differences. I have had judges tell me that certain cultures act in certain ways, and allowing these cultural differences to be recognized in a respectful manner can lead to a resolution of a case.

13.    In making a ruling, a good judge should be clear and concise, and explain what he or she is doing and why. Too many times I have had attorneys and litigants walking out of a court room shaking their heads and wondering what the judge did and clearly not understanding what the ruling was based upon. This is not good for anyone.

14.    Last, but not least, just like a good lawyer understands that a trial before a stranger should be the last resort, not the first, a good judge should understand that also. A judge should leave plenty of opportunity for resolution of a case short of trial either through mediation, negotiations or sometimes, arm-twisting by the judge.

Well put Henry; we could not have stated the matter any better.  Clearly, four-decades of practicing family law has given you some very valuable insight.  Thanks for sharing your thougts.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,family court,family law,Henry S. Gornbein,judge,Oakland County

Narcissus Gets a Divorce

Narcissus admires his reflection.

In my decades of divorce practice, I've encountered folks who, if a psychological evaluation was completed, would be characterized as having narcissistic personality disorder.  A few of these peeps have been clients; others have been on the opposing side.

Either way, everyone involved is in for a rough ride.

Over the past several years, "narcissism" has also taken on a connotation-du-jour.  The diagnosis being made by dime-store psychologists (i.e. parties to family court litigation) whenever the object takes an opposing or contrary view. 

What is narcissim, really?

According to the Mayo Clinic, narcissistic personality disorder is "characterized by dramatic, emotional behavior, which is in the same category as antisocial and borderline personality disorders."   A person with this personality disorder may exhibit some of the following characteristics, according to the Clinic:

• Believing you are better than others;
• Fantasizing about your success, power and attractiveness;
• Exaggerating your achievements or talents;
• Expecting constant praise and admiration;
• Ignoring other's feelings and emotions;
• Believing and acting like you are really, really special;
• Taking advantage of others;
• Expecting others to go along with your often super-sized schemes and plans;
• Exhibiting jealousy toward others;
• Believing others are jealous of you;
• Unable to maintain healthy inter-personal relationships;
• Easily hurt or rejected;
• Fragile self-esteem

If you know someone with more than a few of these traits, run.  If you are married to such a person, get ready for the inevitable divorce proceeding when you finally throw in the towel, realizing that your spouse will never change. 

If you are a lawyer representing such a person, affix your chin strap and bring a lunch.

In the divorce context, the narcissist fares quite poorly.  The above-listed features of this personality disorder are routinely identifed and rigorously addressed by family court professionals. 

In this process, the personality flaws of the narcissist are forced itno the lab for a full-on forensic evaluation.  Many of the tools in the family court professional's arsenal will be brought to bear upon the conduct of the narcissist in an effort to force short-term modification, and to achieve a stable platform.

Some red flags that I've gleaned over the years: a narcissist will change lawyers often, blaming the status of the case on the mistakes of prior legal counsel.  Also, the register of actions in the case of a narcissist will often be a mile long, peppered with hearings, motions, and more hearings.

When a narcissist is embroiled in a divorce proceeding, the children are used as pawns.  Any input from the Friend of the Court [either via a referee, family counselor, or social worker] or from a therapist, is rejected; the narcissistic parent must be dragged to court, kicking, screaming and cursing.

In the years leading up to such a divorce, the other spouse will often report being chronically verbally abused and bullied by the narcissist.  In fact, this dynamic will set the initial tone of the proceeding.

The process will next feature a series of attempts, which will take some time, where the professionals try to arrest the insidious and pervasive conduct of the narcissist.  Arrest, but not change; this person will not change.

The other spouse many times will exhibit classic signs of emotional abuse during this painful process: low self-esteem, exhaustion, a desire to give up or give in.  This person needs a strong focused divorce lawyer.

And counseling. 

During the divorce process, the other spouse is well advised to minimize the face-to-face contacts with the narcissist.  If children are involved, then communicate through emails and texts. 

If you feel threatened at home or during parenting exchanges, seek exclusive use of the marital home.  If you are separated, use a neutral transition point for the parenting exchanges; most family court judges will grant such a request simply to err on the side of everyone's safety.

Finally, stay focused on the process knowing that the process will eventually come to an end.  The Michigan Supreme Court has mandated that county family courts conclude divorce proceedings within a year.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: divorce,divorce lawyer,family court,family law,family law lawyer,Mayo Clinic,narcissism,narcissistic personality disorder,Narcissus

Child Obesity as a Custody Factor in Family Court

Yesterday, the NBC Today Show featured a segment on family court cases where a parent was mounting a child custody challenge based on obesity.  This past year, I recall hearing much about the subject of childhood obesity, perhaps due to the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign.

According to a recent report by the Center for Disease Control, childhood obesity affects 17% of our nation's youth; a figure triple what it was just a generation ago.  Now that this is a recognized condition putting on the cloak of yet another national crisis, should family court judges take childhood obesity into account in the custody calculus?

The father featured in the Today Show segment was shown cooking a vegetarian meal for his two preteen children.  He succeeded in his custody ploy to the extent the family court judge modified  custody such that the children stayed at dad's house during the weeks of the school year.

In Michigan, the Child Custody Act sets forth several factors which a family court judge must consider when deciding a custody dispute.  One of these factors is the capacity of a parent to provide food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care.  Arguably, this factor could include how a parent manages a child's diet; particularly if that child is at risk for obesity or is, in fact, obese.


The relative physical health of the parents and the reasonable preference of the child (particularly if older than age 12) could also come into play in a childhood obesity custody case.  A parent's unhealthy lifestyle may factor into the family court judge's calculus.


In come cases, it may strike the judge as unfair to basically penalize a parent for the child's eating habits.  This is a particularly close case where the obesity may be genetic and thus, hereditary.  Also, how far does the family court go?  


The optimal situation, of course, is where both parties co-parent with the child's best interests in mind.  Diet, exercise and lifestyle, however, often do not mesh between divorced parents.


As our nation continues it's struggle against the bulge, the cases of the type featured on the Today Show may pop up with more regularity in the county family courts across the state.  We all want the best for your young children.  Certainly, a good diet is an important component to a good healthy upbringing.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,Child Custody Act,co-parenting,family court,family law,parenting schedule

By the Numbers: Clarkston Legal Production 2011

In my law practice, I drive from various courts across Michigan in a 2009 Ford Explorer.  That vehicle has 110,000 miles burned into it over the past 3-years.  That's a lot of court appearances.

Here are the numbers behind those miles for this past calendar year.


Michigan Court of Appeals.  Although I had not argued before the Court of Appeals in more than two years, I had 4 arguments before the intermediate appellate tribunal in 2011.  Also filed 25 briefs in that court; most of them applications for leave to appeal guilty pleas.  In the first week of 2012, I have two arguments.

Oakland County.  This is where we hold a "home field" advantage.  In 2011, I appeared in the circuit court, including the family court division, 118 times.  An additional 86 appearances were made in the Oakland County Probate Court.  Getting to know the judges pretty well over there.

Getting to know the Friend of the Court Referees as well with 30 trips to the FOC for early intervention conferences, or evidentiary hearings.

Macomb County.  Went "East Side" for 24 court appearances in 2011, all of them in the circuit or family courts; no East Side probate court appearances this year.  Many of these were for the Attorney General.

Wayne County.  In 2011, we made 20 court appearances in the "D"; fifteen were in the circuit and family courts, while the remaining 5 were all in the Wayne County Probate Court.

Genesee County.  Just to the North of our offices [we can be in Flint in less than a half hour], I made the dash to the Genesee County Circuit Court 10 times in 2011.  In addition, we made 4 trips to the Genesee Friend of the Court for hearings.

Livingston County.  Only five appearances in Livingston County Circuit Court this year; all on a single divorce case.

District Courts.  In 2011, we appeared in many of the various district courts placed throughout the counties in which we appear.  80 district court appearances to be precise; most of them for criminal matters.

Administrative Hearings.  Only three of these this year; for drivers license restorations and an implied consent refusal.

Keep in mind folks, these statistics are for but one attorney in the Karlstrom Cooney law firm; my partners have many other court appearances in these courts.  They do have, however, more "transactional" law practices than mine.  Along with Kay Caruso, Stuart Cooney, and Peter Keenan, we are the firm's litigators.

So these are my numbers for this year; it was a productive one.  We have our clients to thank for keeping us well engaged.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: family court,Friend of the Court,Genesee County,Livingston County,Macomb County Circuit Court,Oakland County Circuit Court,Wayne County Circuit Court

Post-Divorce Nesting

Brown Bird Design for Time

This week in Time Magazine, there is a story in the "Society" section about a mode of parenting known as, "Nesting".  This is where divorced parents each secure a residence beyond the former marital home; the couple's children remain in the marital home, to "nest".

The theory behind nesting is that it seeks to minimize the sense of upheaval that children of school age often experience during and after their parent's divorce.

Time's Belinda Luscombe speculates that the nesting mode of post-divorce parenting has emerged over the past decade as an innovative version of co-parenting.  It remains rare, however, to get both parents on the same page be able to pull it off.

In the past decade, I have completed nearly 250 divorces and only two of those featured a nesting arrangement.  Of those two cases, one of nests was destroyed, via foreclosure.

On the other hand, the difficult real estate market has forced many divorcing couples to hang onto their former marital home; like it or not.  Nesting would seem to be a viable option.  Usually, however, one of the parents "takes one for the team" and remains in the marital home, or the couple "walks away" from the home to begin their new post-divorce lives under the cloud of foreclosure.

Proponents assert that the nesting arrangement eliminates the continuous shuffling between two homes by the children that comes with a traditional parenting schedule; the parents do the shuffling in a nesting arrangement.  Also, for children of a certain age, the arrangement allows them to continue living and going to school in a familiar environment, their childhood home, while they adjust to their parents' divorce.

Most family court judges look upon nesting arrangements with a certain degree of skepticism, if not outright scorn.  In family court, however, parents are free to make whatever arrangements they desire so long as the judge can be convinced it is in best interests of the children involved in the case.

As a temporary post-divorce parenting technique between two cooperating amiable co-parents, nesting can work.  It very well may provide the minor children with a better opportunity to adjust to the strains of divorce.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Belinda Luscombe,child custody,co-parenting,divorce,divorce lawyer,family court,family law,Time Magazine

So You Want to Be a Circuit Judge

Good news!  Governor Rick Snyder has put out an official notice for applications to fill a seat opening up on the Wayne County Circuit Court vacated by Michigan Supreme Court Justice Mary Beth Kelly.  Here is the application, should you be an interested practicing attorney living in Wayne County.

Some fantastic Wayne Circuit Judges have come from gubernatorial appointments; Michigan Supreme Court Justice Brian Zahra comes to mind.

Although not completely clear, this current spot will probably be on the family court, so you would preside over a steady diet of divorces and custody battles.

Once you get appointed, don't get too comfortable; the State Court Administrative Office has slated one Wayne County judgeship for elimination no later than January 2013.  Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano is calling for more judicial eliminations given Detroit's declining population.

Upon your completion of the judicial term to which you were appointed, if you wanted to keep your job, you would have to run for election on the Wayne County non-partisan ballot.  Don't miss those deadlines; and better start raising funds now for your election.

If this sounds good to you, then download the attached form and get cracking on those references; the Governor's deadline is fast approaching.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Detroit,divorce,family court,Governor Rick Snyder,Justice Brian Zahra,Justice Mary Beth Kelly,Robert Ficano,Wayne County Circuit Court

When Your Children Live with a Murderer Endorsed by the Family Court

A very worried Trisha Conlon

This bizarre family law custody case is playing out in Seattle, WA.  The unusual facts of the case bring into sharp focus the challenge of putting parents' often-questionable decisions through review by a family court judge.

In 1995 Trisha Conlon married Marine fighter pilot John Cushing, Jr.; a man with a tragic past.  His ex-wife, Kristine Cushing, shot to death their two young daughters, 4 and 8, while they slept in their Southern California home.  This was in 1991, when Mr. Cushing was on active duty in the Marine Corps and Mrs. Cushing, by all accounts, was an ideal soccer Mom.

Kristine Cushing's murder trial featured the now infamous "Prozac Defense"; she was found guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to a mental institution where she did a nickle, followed by a decade of intensive in-patient style psychiatric treatment.  She was discharged without restriction in 2005.

Meanwhile, John Cushing tried to put the pieces of his life back together.  He married Trisha Conlon, with whom he had two sons.  Sadly yet predictably, the couple divorced in 2004.  Mr. Cushing's next "life-choice" was to re-marry his first wife, Kristine Cushing, the now-excused infanticidal murderess.

Today, Lt. Col. Cushing (retired) lives on Vashon Island, WA with a split-custody arrangement whereby one of his sons lives with him; the other lives with Ms. Conlon.  The brothers reunite during holidays and vacations.  Under this custody arrangement, Conlon eventually became aware that her ex-spouse not only re-married his first wife, but also shared a marital home with her and Conlon's son.

This information was difficult to come by as Mr. Cushing attempted to conceal his family arrangements.  The distance between the two parents provided the necessary cover.  Ms. Conlon, now living in Oregon, resorted to her family law attorney and his private investigator.

Seeking a change in custody to place her son into her home, Conlon brought proof of the Cushing reunification to the attention of the family court in King County, Washington (Seattle), arguing the arrangement was a "change in circumstance" detrimental to her son's best interests.  She lost her case last month; a hearing on appeal is set for next week.

This case is a testament to the lengths people will go in the name of love, marriage, and progenitorship. Many, perhaps most of us, would not make the same decision as the Lt. Col. in this case; infanticide is just a flat-out "deal-breaker".  On the other hand, imagine the love and forgiveness Cushing must have for his first wife to be able to take such a risk.

To the extent that his decision has placed his son in harm's path, it will be up to a family court judge of the King County Superior Court in Seattle to determine what is best for the boy under its jurisdiction.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: child custody,divorce,divorce lawyer,family court,family law,infanticide,Prozac,Seattle,split custody,Trisha Conlon,Vashon Island

Proposed Divorce Legislation Distinguishes Marital From Separate Property

Two new bills pending in the Michigan legislature attempt to address a long-perceived problem in Michigan family law: how to classify property [separate or marital] in a divorce proceeding.  This legislative proposal has judges and divorce attorneys up in arms.

The tie-barred bills, 4672 and 4673, introduced by Livonia Republican John Walsh, propose standards for the division of marital property, and comingled marital and separate property; create a presumption of non-division for separate property; and revises the procedures by which a family court could "invade" one spouse's separate property and award it to the other spouse.

In Michigan, a family court judge's power to apportion property in a divorce comes strictly from statutes; a confusing patchwork of four separate statutes, to be precise.  Because of this legislative patchwork, a significant body of common law has developed over the past 30-years addressing the classification and division of property.

Although every divorce case is decided on its own merit, the present state of divorce law allows the distinct possibility, if sufficent and compelling factors are proven, for the invasion of separate property.  The new legislation is largely viewed as making such an invasion more difficult, if not impossible.

Birmingham divorce attorney James P. Cunningham summarized the problem in a 2008 Michigan Bar Journal article, calling for legislation to "fill the gap" between the cases.  Cunningham was on the floor of the house in Lansing last week to testify as an expert about the need for this legislation and, presumably, to endorse the content of Walsh's bills.

So why such a fuss from the family court bench and bar?  First, they contend that Walsh is fast-tracking the legislation without input from their professional organizations.  Second, these groups also assert the proposed measures are grossly unfair to the non-propertied spouse.

When cornered by a reporter at the Capitol last week, a lobbist for the bills denied they were being fast-tracked but wryly noted that the family court bar was a veritable "graveyard" for good ideas.

Is this going to be a case of the rich getting richer?  The so-called "missionaries for the family" certainly think so and are determined to quash the measures; you should have seen the chatter about these bills appearing on the State Bar of Michigan's Family Law listserve...

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Attorny James P. Cunningham,divorce,family court,family law,family law lawyer,marital estate,marital property,Representative John Walsh,separate property,State Bar of Michigan

SCOTUS: No Right to Attorney in Child Support Civil Contempt Proceeding

As the High Court's term comes to an end this week, SCOTUS is issuing opinions by the day.  One of those announced this week was the South Carolina case involving a father's contempt proceeding for failure to pay his child support.

The case, Turner v Rogers, involved a series of contempt proceedings conducted in the family court.  Father failed to pay his support, so he was repeatedly jailed, once for a 12-month stint.  Neither father nor mother were represented by counsel in the proceedings.

The case wound its way through the South Carolina court system.  By the time the case arrived at the SCOTUS, Turner had long-completed his 12-month stint in the county jail.

SCOTUS, in reversing his conviction, nevertheless held that a person involved in civil contempt hearings, as a matter of Due Process, was not entitled to an attorney.  The reasons for this are because the opposing party is not the state but rather, the mother of the children.  Also, the High Court found that in such proceedings, Due Process is satisfied by providing the support payor with a form to elicit financial information, providing him notice of a hearing, and by conducting a brief hearing on the payor's finances relative to his obligation.

In this case, Turner's conviction was reversed (even though he completed his jail stint) because he was not provided with a financial disclosure form, was not provided an attorney, and the family court erred by failing to make relevant factual findings that father was able to make the support payments when it found him in contempt.  Basic stuff.

Here is a piece of scholarly criticism of this SCOTUS decision in the blog Concurring Opinions that has already shown up in the blogosphere.

Bottom line: pay your child support obligations.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

  

Read more »

Posted in: child support,child support arrearage,family court,family law,family law lawyer,SCOTUS

Fathers See Gains in County Family Courts

Do the regularly maintained statistics support the contention that fathers are getting more time with their children in family courts?  To borrow a lyric from the 70’s band, Boston, “it’s more than a feeling”.

 

Divorce records maintained by the Michigan Department of Community Health reflect a trend that family law professionals have observed, and perhaps helped influence; fathers with joint custody and equal parenting time.

While family law attorneys will no doubt acknowledge this trend, hard statistics are difficult to garner.  Custody is still decided on a “case-by-case”, county by county, basis.

The form used by MDCH to collect information about divorces has a field to designate custody of minor children involved in a case.  The person completing the form, usually an attorney, selects from the basic options of joint custody, or designates custody to mother, or father.

Per usual, however, the devil is in the details.  For many practicing family law, the formal custody designation set forth in a judgment of divorce or custody order is merely a label, and a poor one at that.

Joint legal custody is usually a given; an accepted starting point.  Physical custody, however, is a more contentious battlefield.  The phrase “physical custody” does not even appear in the Michigan Child Custody Act; it is a mechanism used by family law attorneys and family court judges to identify a custodial parent.

The more significant provision is the parenting schedule set forth in the judgment.  Not only does that schedule establish how much actual contact the minor children get with each parent, it also determines the child support obligation for each parent.

Purely anecdotal evidence from our recent divorce cases is consistent with the trend that Fathers are awarded joint custody (legal and physical) more often and, roughly, equal parenting time.  One size, however, does not fit all.

An article titled Throwaway Dads, from the Michigan Bar Journal from 10-years ago, decrying a gender bias against fathers, provides an interesting barometer relative to the climate change in Michigan’s county family courts.

There must be good reasons to establish where the children of a divorce will live, and even better reasons to limit them from the home of one of their parents.  Focusing on the parenting schedule rather than the custody label is the real trend at work here.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: attorney,child custody,Child Custody Act,family court,family law,family law lawyer,joint custody,Michigan Bar Journal,Oakland County Family Court