MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SEE: http://courts.mi.gov/courts/coa/opinions/pages/zipfiles.aspx
Safdar v Aziz, for publication opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 7, 2017. (Docket No. 337985).
A trial court has authority to consider a motion for change
of domicile that would impact custody and modify a judgment of divorce, even if
this action occurs while an appeal is pending.
Leagon v Leagon, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released July 11, 2017. (Docket No. 334922).
The Court of Appeals could find no authority to support
plaintiff’s argument that only moral transgressions that occurred after filing
a motion to change custody should be considered in the best interests analysis.
Bauer v Waidelick, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released July 25, 2017. (Docket No. 336876).
The trial court did not err in finding insufficient evidence
of a change in circumstances where the alleged change was likely a result of
the parents’ continuous hostile behavior rather than a separate event.
Kimball v Pearson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released July 25, 2017. (Docket No. 335639).
Generally a trial court does not abuse its discretion in
denying a motion for reconsideration that rests on evidence that could have
been presented in the original motion; however this principle must yield to the
primary goal of securing custody decisions that are in the best interests of
the child.
Campean v Campean, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released July 27, 2017. (Docket No. 335861).
Normal life changes such as employment schedule, housing
relocation, and remarriage do not amount to change of circumstances warranting
modification of parenting time as significant as a custody change when the life
changes focused on the parent and not on their impact to the child’s
environment, behavior, and well-being.
Kenzie v Kenzie, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
August 8, 2017. (Docket No. 335873).
An award of sole legal and physical custody to plaintiff with
conditional gradually increasing joint custody to the defendant dependent upon
his continued negative drug testing was appropriate considering defendant’s
recent behavior including: engaging in domestic violence and stalking the
plaintiff, drug use, and evidence of an unstable mental state, but
acknowledging his long-term committed and loving relationship with the children.
Miller v Johnson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
August 8, 2017. (Docket No. 336083; 337055).
Because
the trial court considered two motions to change custody—Johnson’s motion to change
physical custody and Miller’s motion to change legal custody—it was required to
determine separately whether each party could establish proper cause or change
of circumstances sufficient to reopen the custody issues.
Johnson v Johnson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released August 8, 2017. (Docket No. 336827).
When plaintiff was granted a change of domicile to move the
parties’ children out of state to Virginia, it was appropriate for plaintiff to
bear the burden of travel expenses to accommodate defendant’s holiday and
summer parenting time in Michigan, while the travel expenses for defendant’s
optional school-year weekend parenting time in Virginia are defendant’s burden.
Bridge v Bridge, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
August 15, 2017. (Docket No. 335453).
The
trial court did not err in finding that a balancing of the factors justified
joint legal custody when although the parties had difficulty cooperating “in a
natural way,” they were able to use a computer program called Our Family Wizard
to communicate and resolve issues involving the children.
Russian v Porter and intervener Rebeaud, unpublished opinion of
the Court of Appeals, released August 22, 2017. (Docket No. 337168).
The Revocation of Paternity Act does not require an analysis
of whether an established custodial environment exists in connection with an
analysis of the best interests of the child under MCL 722.1443(4).
Roe v Roe, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released August 22, 2017. (Docket No. 336452).
Although a change in the defendant’s availability to care
for his children may be a normal life change, the Vodvarka standard requiring more than “normal life changes” to
justify a change in circumstances refers to changes in the child’s life rather
than the custodian’s life.
Kristianti v Karppinen, unpublished opinion of the Court of
Appeals, released August 31, 2017. (Docket No. 332676).
Trial courts must consider facts including the relative
income of the parties, the needs of the child, and any other particular
circumstances of the case before determining if deviation from the child
support formula is warranted.
Block v Galbraith, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 5, 2017. (Docket No. 335874).
The trial court erred by attempting to award custody in a
guardianship proceeding without complying with the Child Custody Act which is
the exclusive act governing custody determinations.
Ali v Ali, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 14, 2017. (Docket No. 331601).
The
trial court could properly impute income to the defendant when it found
defendant’s testimony that he only made $800 to $900 a month not credible given
his historical earnings including cash transactions, previous work experience as
a certified mechanic, and prevailing wage rates in the local geographical area.
Malish v Marcelli, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 19, 2017. (Docket No. 337990).
Given
that defendant’s allegations that related to changes that occurred after the
judgment of divorce were limited to issues that were normal life changes
(medical and dental issues) or would not have a significant effect on AM’s
well-being (teacher’s strike), the trial court’s finding that there was not
proper cause or a change of circumstances was not against the great weight of
the evidence.
d’Itri v Bollinger, unpublished opinion of the Court of
Appeals, released September 19, 2017. (Docket No. 337815).
During a custody proceeding when facts were disputed which were
relevant to determining whether the threshold proper cause or change in
circumstances burden has been met, the trial court erred by not holding an
evidentiary hearing.
Karungi v Ejalu, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 26, 2017. (Docket No. 337152).
The trial court committed error by dismissing a case
involving control of frozen embryos based on the incorrect case classification
code.
Wilson v Haney, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released October 10, 2017. (Docket No. 338738).
Although the referee erroneously considered the factors for
a change in domicile when the plaintiff had sole legal custody of the minor
child, the trial court corrected the error in the de novo hearing and correctly considered whether the change in
domicile would modify an established custodial environment notwithstanding the
child’s legal custody.
Goetz v Frandle, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released October 12, 2017. (Docket No. 338142).
Although the child lived entirely with her mother, the
parties’ contentious divorce, the mother’s exclusion of the father during her
pregnancy and the child’s birth, and the need for court intervention for the
father to see the child supported the trial court’s determination that the
child’s environment was insufficiently stable to constitute an established
custodial environment with the mother.
Espinoza v Espinoza, unpublished opinion of the Court of
Appeals, released October 12, 2017. (Docket No. 338145).
Although the trial court stated that if defendant secured housing in the
children’s school district it would consider alternating weeks of parenting
time and established a review hearing in three months to further consider the
children’s custody, the trial court was still required to consider whether the
children had an established custodial environment and whether there was a
change in circumstances before changing the current custody order.
2017-024 (October 26,
2017) Revised Expiration Date on the
Interstate Notice of Lien (FEN060)
This IV-D Memorandum announces a revision to the expiration
date on the Interstate Notice of Lien (FEN060). The revised FEN060 will be
available in MiCSES as of October 31, 2017.
2017-023 (October 18,
2017) Contract Performance Standards
(CPS) Project: Status Update
This IV-D Memorandum provides an update on the Contract
Performance Standards (CPS) Project and a forecast regarding its
implementation. This is new information; all PA and FOC staff are encouraged to
read this memorandum. OCS is working toward an implementation of CPS for fiscal
year 2019 (FY19), which will begin October 1, 2018 and end September 30, 2019.
2017-022 (September
25, 2017) Correction to the Reasonable
Cost of Health Care Percentage in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System
(MiCSES) and Updated Policy on Duplicating Calculations in the MiCSES
Calculator
This IV-D Memorandum announces a correction to MiCSES
functionality to accurately populate the Reas Cost % field on the Medical Order
Provisions (MORP) screen and to retroactively update the reasonable cost of
health care percentage on orders entered after December 3, 2016 and prior to
this release on September 29, 2017. This memorandum also announces an update to
Section 4.20, “Support Recommendations and Order Entry,” of the Michigan IV-D Child
Support Manual, which provides additional guidance about duplicating
calculations on the MiCSES Calculator.
2017-021 (September
5, 2017) Implementation of and
Enhancements to the Federal Child Support Portal Applications and Modifications
to User Access Security Forms
This IV-D Memorandum introduces three Child Support Portal
applications that the Michigan child support program will implement on
September 8, 2017: Federal Case Registry (FCR) Query; State Statistical
Reporting System (SSRS); and Multistate Financial Institution Data Match
(MSFIDM). This memorandum also introduces the Child Support Portal
Implementation Table (Exhibit 3.06E3) and three Portal applications that OCS
was required to immediately implement but did not previously announce in a IV-D
Memorandum: Online State Plan System; Data Reliability Audit (DRA) Portal
Upload; and Self-Assessment. Additionally, this memorandum announces updates to
the existing Portal applications eEmployer, Department of Defense (DoD)
Entitlement, and Query Interstate Cases for Kids (QUICK).
2017-020 (August 21,
2017) Updates to Family Violence
Functionality
This IV-D Memorandum announces system changes to family
violence functionality related to the MiCSES/Michigan State Police Law
Enforcement Information Network (MSP LEIN) interface. These changes were
implemented with the MiCSES 9.6 Release on August 25, 2017.
2017-019 (August 21,
2017) Excluding National Medical Support
Notices (NMSNs) From Non-IV-D Cases
This IV-D Memorandum announces new MiCSES functionality with
the August 25, 2017 MiCSES 9.6 Release which ensures that OCS meets the
requirement to use the NMSN only in IV-D cases. This memorandum also announces
revisions to Section 6.06 of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual to: explain
the impacts to the NMSN process when a non-IV-D case is the active enforcement
case on an order that also has one or more IV-D cases; update the policy on
issuing NMSNs only in IV-D cases; and make several minor updates. Finally, this
memorandum introduces the new PDF version of the NMSN that IV-D workers will
use under limited circumstances.
