MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED http://courts.mi.gov/courts/coa/opinions/pages/zipfiles.aspx.
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
Published opinion summaries have been published here with permission from the Michigan Judicial Institute’s “IMPACT” publication.
Parks v Niemiec, published opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
September 18, 2018 (Docket No. 337823).
CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT – 10-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND TOLLING THROUGH
CONTINUING JURISDICTION
“A
civil action to enforce a child support order is subject to a 10-year statutory
limitations period,” and “[t]he ten-year statutory period of limitations to
enforce a support order in a civil proceeding runs from the date that the last
support payment is due under the support order regardless of whether or not the
last payment is made.” Parks v Niemiec,
___ Mich App ___, ___ (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted). While “the date that the last support payment
is due is [generally] the child’s 18th birthday,” “[a] statute of limitations
is tolled when a complaint is properly filed or [a]t the time jurisdiction over
the defendant is otherwise acquired,” and “a trial court has continuing
jurisdiction over proceedings brought under The Paternity Act . . . to enforce
a support order.” Parks, ___ Mich App
at ___ (quotation marks and citations omitted). Where the trial court denied
the defendant’s motion to discharge unpaid child support, it “erred when it
determined that no statute of limitations applied to civil proceedings to
enforce a child support order, [but] nevertheless reached the correct result
because the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction . . . tolled the limitations
periods.” Id. at ___.
Nadimpali v Byrraju, published opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released October 9, 2018 (Docket No. 340405).
UNIFORM
CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) – JURISDICTION,
REGISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
“[T]he
circuit court did not abuse its discretion by entering [an] order vacating its
[prior] registration of [a] California child-custody determination under the
UCCJEA,” because “[t]he circuit court recognized the separate issues of
registering the child-custody determination and having the authority to modify
or enforce it.” Nadimpali v Byrraju,
___ Mich App ___, ___ (2018). Specifically, “regardless of whether the order
could be registered in Michigan, the circuit court was without authority to
modify it in any way” because “[t]o have jurisdiction to modify the California
child-custody order, the circuit court would have to find that it had the
jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination under the UCCJEA
and also either that California had determined that it no longer had exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction, or that Michigan or California courts had determined
that neither the child nor a parent of the child resided in California”;
however, “[t]he circuit court did not have jurisdiction to make an initial
child-custody determination because, although California was no longer the
child’s home state[]”—India had become the child’s home state—“Michigan has
never been the child’s home state.” Id.
at ___. In sum, “[t]he circuit court correctly found that other orders had been
entered in the child-custody matter by a court in India, the state having
jurisdiction under the UCCJEA,” and the earlier “California child-custody
determination was no longer enforceable because it had been modified.” Id. at ___.
Luna v Regnier,
published opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released October 18, 2018 (Docket No. 343382).
PARENTING
TIME – SUSPENSION AND PERIODIC HEARINGS FOR REINSTATEMENT
Where
the trial court entered an order suspending defendant’s parenting time, but the
“order provide[d] no mechanism for it to review whether the children may wish
to reinitiate contact with defendant unless they or plaintiff proactively relay
this information to the trial court,” the Court of Appeals “affirm[ed] the
trial court’s suspension of parenting time, but . . . remand[ed] for the trial
court to conduct periodic hearings to determine whether reinstituting parenting
time would be in the children’s best interests”; “[w]ithout a mechanism for
further review, defendant’s parental rights are effectively nonexistent.” Luna v Regnier, ___ Mich App ___, ___
(2018).
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
Under Michigan court rule, unpublished decisions
are not considered authoritative. They are cited here to illustrate points of
interest for future similar cases.
Herald v Rozek, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 11, 2018 (Docket No. 339530). When gradual changes to
parenting time are incorporated in the trial court’s original custody and
parenting time order, the changes do not qualify as a modification or amendment
of custody or parenting time requiring proof of proper cause or a change of
circumstances.
Holmes v Holmes, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 11, 2018 (Docket No. 341025). The trial court erred when
considering facts regarding the parties’ willingness to encourage a
relationship between the children and the other parent – factor (j) – as
negating plaintiff’s capacity and disposition to give the children love,
affection, and guidance under factor (b).
Thompson v Henze, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 11, 2018 (Docket No. 342867). When all other factors weigh
relatively equally, a change in custody is appropriate if it offers a familiar
environment and school for the child, as well as a home free from domestic
violence and alcohol abuse.
Eads v Scott, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 13, 2018 (Docket No. 341902). A change of domicile may be
warranted when the move substantially increases the primary custodian’s earning
ability, enhances the child’s environment and access to playmates, and does not
disrupt existing family ties.
MDHHS & Laubenthal v Betts, unpublished opinion of the
Court of Appeals, released September 18, 2018 (Docket No. 342040). In a case
with a long and contentious history, it served the best interests of the child
to keep the case in a county where neither parent was residing but where the
court was familiar with the case.
Cavanaugh v Cavanaugh, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 20, 2018 (Docket No. 341605). The trial court erred when it
effectively changed custody by granting a motion to substantially change
parenting time without first finding whether proper cause or change of
circumstance existed.
Whitehead v Dhruvan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals,
released September 20, 2018 (Docket No. 343395). A parent’s personal
improvements do not necessarily warrant a change in parenting time because the
best interests of the child controls parenting time and changes must be
grounded in the needs of the child, not the parent.
Stokes v Tyson-Bradley, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 4, 2018
(Docket No. 342064). When a best-interests analysis was close for two parents
residing in different states, with each capable of meeting the child’s needs,
the trial court found the analysis weighed in favor of physical custody with
plaintiff due to evidence of his greater educational involvement and continuity
of the custodial home for the child.
Royce v LaPorte, unpublished opinion of
the Court of Appeals, released October 9, 2018 (Docket Nos. 337549; 340354;
339903). The trial court did not commit error by denying defendant’s motions to
increase her parenting time - which amounted to a change in custody - because she
did not meet her burden of demonstrating a change of circumstances or other
proper cause.
Corbett v Corbett, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 9, 2018
(Docket No. 343404). The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion
to modify parenting time to a schedule which would alter the custodial
arrangement without making any findings of fact regarding the established
custodial environment or the child’s best interests.
Doin v Vogel, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
October 11, 2018 (Docket No. 343523). Defendant failed to meet the thresholds
necessary to warrant revisiting legal custody or plaintiff’s parenting time
when he presented: unsubstantiated claims of pest issues in plaintiff’s home; a
medical record that did not substantiate abuse; occasional cigarette smoking by
plaintiff around the child; and alleged lack of involvement by plaintiff in the
child’s schooling.
Johnson v DeVries, unpublished opinion of the Court of
Appeals, released October 16, 2018 (Docket No. 342135). The trial court erred
in determining the amount of sanctions applied to plaintiff for violating the
parenting time agreement because the court addressed different dates and issues
than those raised by the defendant’s objection to the referee’s initial
findings.
Lechner v Lechner, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released October 16, 2018 (Docket No. 343164). When the child had
an established custodial environment with both parents and a proposed
out-of-state change of domicile was supported by an analysis of the D’Onofrio factors, the trial court
should have next conducted a best-interests analysis per Rains because the move would alter the custodial environment with
the parent remaining in Michigan.
Derkin v Tersigni, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released October 23, 2018 (Docket No. 342850). Equality or near
equality on the best-interest factors will not necessarily prevent a party from
satisfying the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that
modification is in the child’s best interests.
GuyetteII v Cornell, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released October 23, 2018 (Docket No. 343869). The trial court
properly considered under custody factor (l), “[a]ny other factor considered by
the court to be relevant,” that plaintiff, although healthy with no physical
limitations, received little to no earnings from 2014 to 2016, failed to
provide any financial support to the family, and may have failed to disclose
income.
Cox v Cox, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released November 15, 2018 (Docket Nos. 338642, 339950). The 2013
MCSF does not bar counting as income a party’s annual draw from the principal
of an inheritance.
Struyk v Schweihofer, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released November 27, 2018 (Docket No. 341140). Where the parties
were unable to effectively communicate or agree on the needs and best interests
of their children and plaintiff was more likely to evaluate and consider the
needs of the children when compared to defendant’s more egocentric focus, it
was appropriate to award sole legal custody to the plaintiff.
Brown v Brown, unpublished opinion of the Court
of Appeals, released November 27, 2018 (Docket No. 343493). When the mother
provided no reason to call into question her agreement to the judgment of
divorce or the trial court’s consideration of the child’s best interests when
it entered that judgment, there was no cause to modify the graduated parenting
time schedule mandated by the judgment of divorce.
2018-014 (September 24, 2018) Contract Performance Standards (CPS) Updates for October 1, 2018
This IV-D Memorandum introduces updates to Section 1.25, “Contracts,” in the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. OCS has made these updates to reflect changes that will be made to the following CPS Business Objects reports with MiCSES. Additionally, this memorandum provides guidance to offices for running reports at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2018 and updates on other CPS developments, including the “SOP Re-Launch.”
2018-015 (December 5, 2018) Updates to the OCS
Publication Understanding Child Support: A Handbook for Parents (OCSPAMP and
DHS-Pub-748)
This IV-D Memorandum announces an
update to Understanding Child Support: A
Handbook for Parents. This publication provides child support applicants an
introduction to the child support program. The publication comes in two
different formats that contain the same information: OCSPAMP, which is
generated by the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES); and
DHS-Pub-748, which is a printed handbook. The updated OCSPAMP will be available
in MiCSES on Friday, December 7 after 5 p.m. OCS has revised the text in the
OCSPAMP and the DHS-Pub-748 to ensure the wording matches in both publications.
Also, OCS has made minor wording changes for clarity, as well as formatting and
punctuation changes.
