MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SEE: http://courts.mi.gov/courts/coa/opinions/pages/zipfiles.aspx
Geering v King, for publication opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 13, 2017. (Docket No. 335794).
Inconsistency in co-parenting, discipline, communication, and the failure to foster the relationship with the other parent did not render the parents unfit within the definition the statute provides. If two fit parents oppose an order for grandparenting time, the court must dismiss the grandparenting time request.
Jones v Jones, for publication opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 22, 2017. (Docket No. 334937).
The plaintiff, presumed father, could revoke his paternity under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA) because he specifically revoked his consent to defendant’s assisted reproductive technology procedures and did not contribute to her in vitro fertilization. The court distinguished the situation in which a presumed father might have participated in in vitro fertilization but later revoked his consent for assisted reproductive technology by opining the best interest factors could still be used if appropriate to deny revocation.
Matthew v Trudell, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 5, 2017. (Docket No. 334911).
When the moving party introduced evidence that a change in domicile could produce more income and access to extended family, but failed to produce evidence of how such a change would improve the child’s life and further how the proposed change in parenting time would preserve and foster the parental relationship between the child and each parent, the court correctly denied the motion to change domicile.
McCoy v Main, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 11, 2017. (Docket No. 334659).
The trial court is free to adopt the custody investigator’s recommendation provided that the court indicates on the record that it makes an independent determination that the findings in the investigator’s report were correct and proper.
Walker v Walker, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 13, 2017. (Docket No. 334752).
A material change of circumstances significant enough to warrant a change in custody and/or parenting time must be greater than normal parenting struggles with children’s hygiene and homework.
Daly v Ward, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 18, 2017. (Docket No. 333425).
It was irrelevant whether the trial court’s temporary order changing custody was proper; once a new established custodial environment exists—regardless of how it came to exist—it cannot be changed absent clear and convincing evidence that a change is in the child’s best interests.
Landry-Chan v Chan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 20, 2017. (Docket No. 331977).
The trial court could properly limit evidence related to the best interest factors to events after the last custody order had entered because the court had already considered the best interest factors for entry of that order.
Anglin v Anglin, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 25, 2017. (Docket No. 331313).
The failure of a party to appeal from an original judgment of divorce operates as a stipulation to the provisions in that judgment, and a party cannot later collaterally attack the validity of that judgment through a motion to modify child support.
Shimel v McKinley, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 27, 2017. (Docket No. 334571).
The trial court need not consider all factors under MCL 722.27a(7) in determining whether to modify parenting time; only those factors that are relevant.
Emmons v Vancourt, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 4, 2017. (Docket No. 335703).
When a change in parenting time would bring plaintiff’s annual overnights from 265 down to 182.5, the change would necessarily impact the child’s established custodial environment. As such, the trial court should have required defendant to show proper cause or a change of circumstances to change custody and then show by clear and convincing evidence that the parenting time modification is in the best interest of the child.
Department of Health and Human Services v Birmingham, unpublished opinion of the Court of the Appeals, released May 30, 2017. (Docket No. 336553).
Although the Child Custody Act allows certain designated third-parties to initiate an action for custody of a child and allows the trial court to award custody to other third-parties when the court is already engaged in a custody determination, a Family Support Action designating a great-uncle of the child as the child’s custodian was for purposes of determining that he had the right to seek support and did not create a custody dispute sufficient to give the trial court authority to entertain a motion to grant custody to him.
Moffett v Jemmott, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 8, 2017. (Docket No. 330900).
By signing an order for genetic testing in a paternity action without objecting to any terms of the order, a defendant concedes a court’s personal jurisdiction over him.
Lessard v Londo, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 13, 2017. (Docket No. 336156).
The trial court did not err by gradually increasing parenting time from a limited, supervised schedule and not allowing a more liberal parenting time schedule as suggested by articles plaintiff introduced because it was required to determine a parenting time schedule based on the facts of the case and not on a hypothetical child.
White v Garber, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 15, 2017. (Docket No. 336251).
After applying the relevant factors under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and determining it does not have jurisdiction, the trial court has no reason nor obligation to contact the other state to confer.
Duncan v Booth, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 15, 2017. (Docket No. 336364).
The trial court could properly find that the lack of time defendant spent with his other daughter and particularly his failure to exercise summer parenting time with her was a factor in determining plaintiff had the better capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion.
Magryta v Magryta, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 20, 2017. (Docket No. 336433).
The Court of Appeals directed the trial court to find the mother in contempt and impose such sanctions as will make her comply with the court’s order because when a party continuously violates the court’s orders without consequence, the other party’s rights under a court order are rendered meaningless.
Marchese v Marchese, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 22, 2017. (Docket No. 330925; 331560).
Evidence of a parent intentionally withholding the other parent’s court-ordered parenting time until some other condition is met (in this case, sale of the parties’ cottage to the custodial parent’s mother) is a clear violation of that parenting time order and grounds for a contempt ruling against the violator.
Fante v Nova, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 29, 2017. (Docket No. 334735; 336085). The trial court improperly “placed” the children with their father under what the trial court called a temporary order pending the conclusion of a child protective services investigation of mother. Because the order amounted to a change in custody, the court should have first determined whether an established custodial environment existed and whether an analysis of the best interest factors supported a change.
Hund v Hund, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 6, 2017. (Docket No. 334313).
In considering a request to change a child’s domicile, the court is not limited to evidence of how the change would improve the child’s life from the current situation but may consider a former better situation made worse by voluntary changes such as, in this case, the mother’s voluntary temporary move to her parent’s house to be nearer to her desired location.
2017-018 (July 17, 2017) Implementation of the Case Closure Improvement Plan (CCIP)
This IV-D Memorandum announces the implementation of the Case Closure Improvement Plan (CCIP). By implementing the CCIP, Michigan’s IV-D program will continue its corrective actions to improve case closure after failing the federal benchmark for Case Closure in the FY 2015 SASS audit and following a corrective action plan (CAP) for Case Closure during FY 2016.
2017-017 (July 6, 2017) Paternity Establishment Improvement
This IV-D Memorandum explains the Paternity Establishment Percentage (PEP)-Up Initiative to improve paternity establishment data in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES). It also provides: a description of the PEP-Up Report; recommended actions for FOC, PA, and OCS support specialist (SS) staff; instructions for accessing the 2017 PEP-Up report; and information for monitoring progress on the PEP-Up Initiative.
2017-016 (July 13, 2017) Updates to Michigan’s Federal Reporting Process, the Child Support Enforcement Annual Data Report OCSE-157 (FR-157), and Other Related Business Objects Reports
The introduction of the automated Medicaid negative offset process within the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) has created the need for changes to Michigan’s federal reporting process. This has resulted in changes to several Business Objects reports that will be effective with the Data Warehouse 2.29.2 Release on July 21, 2017. The changes to Michigan’s federal reporting process have also resulted in an update to Exhibit 1.30E1, Performance Factor Indicators. This exhibit is published with this memorandum. This memorandum also announces the Data Warehouse’s resumption of federal reporting batches.
2017-015 (July 6, 2017) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Self-Assessment (SASS) Audit Results
This IV-D Memorandum provides information related to the FY 2016 SASS audit and findings. This includes: a brief overview of the SASS audit process and an explanation of the SASS audit findings. This IV-D Memorandum replaces and obsoletes IV-D Memorandum 2016-024.
2017-014 (June 8, 2017) Revisions to the Birth Expenses Request and Updates to Section 4.25, “Birth Expenses,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual
This IV-D Memorandum announces revisions to the Birth Expenses Request (OCS0076 and 6070). The revised OCS0076 and 6070 will be implemented in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) on June 14, 2017. These forms are the MiCSES-generated versions of the Birth Expenses Request (DCH-0491). This memorandum also announces revisions to Section 4.25 to clarify the PA staff process for sending the Birth Expenses Request and provide information about the new automated Medicaid negative offset process that will be implemented with the MiCSES 9.5 Release on June 15, 2017.
2017-013 (June 5, 2017) Automated Medicaid Negative Offset Process for the Recoupment of Incorrect Medical Support Paid to the State
This IV-D Memorandum introduces the automated Medicaid negative offset process for the recoupment of incorrect medical support payments made to the state. These support payments are made to the state to cover Medicaid and state-paid birth expenses. This process will be introduced with the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 9.5 Release on June 15, 2017.
2017-012 (June 6, 2017) IV-D Services for Same-Sex Couples
On June 26, 2015, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage. Although the Supreme Court’s decision permits same-sex marriage in all states, the types of services that IV-D staff can provide to same-sex spouses and couples when they request IV-D services are not addressed in the decision. This IV-D Memorandum provides direction to IV-D staff regarding the level of IV-D services afforded to same-sex spouses and couples and their children.
2017-011 (July 28, 2017) OCS Implementation of the Independent Security Audit Requirement Contained in Section 4.33(b) of the Current (Fiscal Year [FY] 2017) Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) Agreement
This IV-D Memorandum also provides guidance related to the items that must be reviewed in an Independent Security Audit and supporting documentation for the security standards.
