MICHIGAN COURT
OF APPEALS DECISIONS
Yachcik v. Yachcik, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released February 28, 2017. (Docket No. 333834). Because the child had an
established custodial environment with both parents, the trial court erred in
adopting a new parenting time arrangement that granted defendant primary
physical and legal custody and changed the established custodial environment
upon plaintiff’s change in domicile without considering if the arrangement was
in the best interests of the child.
Lieberman v. Orr, published opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 7, 2017. (Docket No. 333816). A motion for a change in parenting
time that reduced the primary custodian’s overnights from 225 nights to 140
nights a year effectively changed the physical custody of the child from
defendant to plaintiff and should have been analyzed under the legal standards
set forth in Vodvarka to determine if
there was a proper cause or change in circumstances to reopen a custody case.
Gray v. Gray, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, released
December 20, 2016. (Docket No. 330929). After continually increasing
defendant’s parenting time due to concerns over plaintiff’s lifestyle and home,
the trial court properly granted a change in custody to defendant where defendant
established a change in circumstances through evidence that plaintiff’s house
was unstable, she was unemployed, the child was frequently late to or missed
school, and plaintiff continuously exposed the child to registered sex
offenders.
Delekta v. Delekta, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released December 20, 2016. (Docket No. 331981). When the children’s anxiety
was neither new nor attributable to the current custody situation, but rather
attributable to the parent’s acrimonious relationship, it did not establish proper
cause or a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a change of physical
custody.
Fargo v. Fargo, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released December 20, 2016. (Docket No. 332242). When an established custodial environment
exists only with one parent, the court must still determine if awarding joint
legal custody will impact the established custodial environment and apply the
appropriate standard.
Waterman v. Waterman, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released December 20, 2016. (Docket No. 332537). An arbitrator correctly
applied the best interest factors in accordance with Michigan Law when he rejected
the accusations of plaintiff’s moral unfitness and requests for random drug and
alcohol testing due to the lack of credible evidence that any type of infidelity
or substance abuse adversely affected the child’s best interests.
Tallman v. Skiver, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released December 20, 2016. (Docket No. 333348). When both parents are
addressing the child’s changes in hearing ability, lazy eye and vision issues,
and increased anxiety and bed wetting, those issues did not meet the threshold
for a proper cause or change in circumstance that justified reevaluating the
child’s custodial situation because they were normal life changes.
Gauthier v. Whitley, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released December 29, 2016. (Docket No. 333258).
Where the record reflected that the child was struggling with
his behavior and academics at school and allegedly engaging in potentially risky
behaviors with his peers, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court
to prohibit the child from using his electronic devices or to undergo
counseling.
Dell’orco v. Dell’orco, unpublished opinion of the court of
appeals, released January 24, 2017. (Docket No. 329672). Final (lump-sum)
payment from an annuity is considered income under the Michigan Child Support
Formula and should not be excluded from the calculation of child support.
Aguilar v. Aguilar, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released January 26, 2017. (Docket No. 331514). The trial court properly considered as unfavorable that the
substantially higher earning defendant had no support order following the
parties’ divorce for several years and refused to agree to pay support until
the court ordered it under custody factor (c) (capacity and disposition to
provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care) and
also under factor (j) (willingness or ability to facilitate a close
relationship between the children and other parent)(along with defendant’s refusing
to pay a share of uninsured medical bills, forcing the plaintiff to file a
motion to allow the children to get a passport for a family trip, and filing a
motion to force the children to change to a school closer to defendant).
Gates v. Kadoguchi, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released February 07, 2017. (Docket No. 330778). While the trial court may
order a parent and children to go to family therapy while parenting time is suspended,
the court should review the progress under therapy more frequently than every
18 months to ensure that the parent’s parenting time is not being effectively
denied through delayed review hearings.
Nasser v. Yafai, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released February 21, 2017. (Docket No. 330362). A trial court may not modify a
custody order, determine an established custodial environment, and make a best
interest determination solely on the basis of guardian ad litem reports.
Kelley v. Johnson, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released February 21, 2017. (Docket No. 334144). Where dental hygiene issues
were the result of both parties inaction, the court correctly found that
there was no sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a change in custody.
Bluemle v. Carr, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released February 21, 2017. (Docket No. 334651). Trial court erred in ruling
that there could not be an established custodial environment with either party
due to the parties’ joint physical custody arrangement; the court must make a
finding based on evidence whether the child has an established custodial
environment with one, both, or neither of the parents.
Duhl v. Ladomer, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 14, 2017. (Docket No. 334307). Where over time, the children began to experience normal life changes
that no longer made the defendant’ seven out of fourteen overnights appropriate
but the defendant could still exercise his established custodial environment
while having four out of fourteen overnights during the school year, the proper
standard was a preponderance of the evidence that the change was in the
children’s best interests.
Dennis v. Tyler, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 21, 2017. (Docket No. 331503). Despite the judgment of divorce
listing the minor child as being the parties’ child the issue was never resolved and the defendant
was not an affiliated father because the issue of paternity was never
adequately adjudicated despite the parties asking the court to do so.
Steinbrink v. Noreyko, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 21, 2017. (Docket No. 333115). Trial court did not err in
awarding sole physical and legal custody of the children to plaintiff and suspending
defendant’s parenting time, as record showed that children feared the
defendant, defendant killed the family cat in front of the children, and the
children did not get along with defendant’s girlfriend.
Pieper v. Pieper, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 21, 2017. (Docket No. 334685). Trial court did not err in
granting plaintiff sole physical custody of children, as record showed
defendant’s part-time jobs and poor financial management reflected a
questionable ability to provide for the children, and defendant’s multiple
violations of the court orders and tendency to leave children with unapproved
third-parties, including his father who was accused of sexual misconduct were
relevant considerations under factor (l) (Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant).
Tuttle v. Chesney, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 21, 2017. (Docket No. 335081). Plaintiff’s previous statements
about denial of moral obligation to assist in the responsibility of caring for
and raising the child, plaintiff’s struggle with basic parenting tasks, and
plaintiff’s interest in “winning” the child warranted finding in favor of awarding
sole physical custody to defendant.
Rozen v. Rozen, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 23, 2017. (Docket No. 333250). A finding on the threshold
determination of proper cause or change in circumstances to determine whether
to change custody was unnecessary when custody order was a temporary order.
Blanchard v. Covell, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 23, 2017. (Docket No. 334495). In a change of domicile case,
where the move would benefit the parent but not necessarily the children’s
lives, the non-moving parent’s parenting time and relationship with the
children would be affected, and the children were flourishing in their current
environment and connected to friends and extended family, it was proper for the
court to deny the motion to change domicile.
Santoro v. Santoro, unpublished opinion of the court of appeals,
released March 28, 2017. (Docket No. 332553).
The parties’ animosity, their accusations and disagreements over
property and financial matters throughout the proceedings, their disagreements
concerning the children’s schooling, counseling, and dental care, and their
inability to agree on fostering the children’s participation in important
extra-curricular activities, supported the trial court’s determination that the
parties were unable to agree and cooperate concerning important decisions
affecting the children’s welfare sufficient for the court to order joint legal
custody.
Michigan IV-D Memorandum (Office of Child Support)
2017-010 (April 24,
2017) Revisions to the Notice of Intent to Report Child Support Debt to Credit
Reporting Agencies (FEN081)
This IV-D
Memorandum announces revisions to the Notice of Intent to Report Child
Support Debt to Credit Reporting Agencies (FEN081) that will be implemented
in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) on April 27, 2017.
2017-009 (April 11, 2017) Discontinued Use of the Support
Collection Payment Request (DHS-820) for Medical Support and Birth Expense
Refunds
This IV-D
Memorandum announces the discontinuance of the use of the Support Collection
Payment Request (DHS-820) as of Tuesday, April 18, 2017, for medical
support and birth expense refunds due to the upcoming automated Medicaid
negative offset process.
2017-008 (April 3, 2017) Introduction of New and Revised
Paternity Establishment Materials
OCS and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
(MDHHS) are launching a marketing campaign for paternity establishment that
will begin April 3, 2017 and run through June 25, 2017. The campaign is
intended to raise awareness about the importance of paternity establishment,
with an emphasis on Early Paternity Education for unmarried, expectant parents.
2017-007 (March 23, 2017) Updates to the National Medical
Support Notice (NMSN) and the Parent Health Care Coverage Explanation Sheet
Updates to
the National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) and the Parent Health Care Coverage
Explanation Sheet.
2017-006 (March 6, 2017) Enhancements to the Public
Calculator and Updates to the Review and Modification Process
This IV-D Memorandum explains the following enhancements regarding
the public calculator: The addition of save/upload functionality; enhancements based
on user feedback; and updates to the Contact Us page. Along with these
changes, OCS is planning to begin a marketing campaign for the public calculator.
This memorandum describes some of the marketing strategies.
2017-005 (March 6, 2017) Federal Expiration Date Updates
This IV-D Memorandum announces system changes to the Federal
Expiration Date (FED) functionality that will occur with the Michigan Child
Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 9.4 Release on March 10, 2017. The changes
will bring MiCSES functionality in line with current policy as published in the
Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. This memorandum also explains an
update to the FED that is needed on some existing cases.
2017-004 (Feb. 21, 2017) New Credit Reporting Policy and
Centralized e-OSCAR Dispute Processing; Counties Will Stop Processing e-OSCAR
Disputes After March 1, 2017
This IV-D Memorandum introduces Section 6.18, “Credit Reporting,”
a new section of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. Section 6.18
incorporates existing OCS and State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) credit
reporting policy and addresses a 2015 amendment to Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL)
552.512 that transferred certain administrative responsibilities for credit
reporting from SCAO to OCS.
This IV-D Memorandum also announces the Program Leadership Group’s
(PLG’s) decision to centralize all e-OSCAR credit reporting dispute processing
for the entire state. The centralization of e-OSCAR dispute processing within
OCS Central Operations will begin on March 1, 2017.
2017-003 (March 13, 2017) Self Assessment (SASS) Audit: Fiscal
Year (FY) 2016 Progress Report on Service of Process (SOP)
Michigan did not meet the federal benchmark of 75 percent for the
Establishment criterion in the Self-Assessment (SASS) audit for FYs 2013, 2014,
and 2015. Michigan’s Establishment criterion was 55 percent in 2013, 57 percent
in 2014, and 59 percent in 2015. As a result, OCS implemented a corrective
action plan per federal requirements. In March 2016, OCS provided an SOP
Progress Report to allow offices performing establishment services to assess
their local office business practices for potential changes that could help
improve Michigan’s performance for the SASS Establishment criterion.
2017-002 (Jan. 31, 2017) Publication of Final Rule: Flexibility,
Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs
The final rule: Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in
Child Support Enforcement Programs was published in the Federal Register on
December 20, 2016.1 The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)
announced the publication of the final rule in Action Transmittal (AT)-16-06.
2017-001 (Jan. 30, 2017) Commingling of Federal Tax Information
(FTI) With Non-FTI, and the Independent Verification of FTI Addresses
This IV-D Memorandum
introduces policy on the commingling of FTI with non-FTI and the independent
verification of FTI addresses to ensure that IV-D staff follows Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines for safeguarding FTI. This memorandum
discusses FTI addresses in MiCSES and other child support information systems;
commingling of FTI with non-FTI; methods for independent verification of FTI
addresses; and safeguarding of FTI addresses.
