Interstate WAYNE COUNTY custody disputes.
Interstate custody disputes are governed by the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).
There are three steps for determining whether to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA:
The Michigan court ascertains whether it has jurisdiction over the case.
It determines if another state also has jurisdiction.
If more than one state has jurisdiction, the court must determine which state should decide the custody dispute.
Enforcement. If another state’s custody order substantially conforms to the UCCJEA, it must be recognized and enforced in Michigan.
Modification. A Michigan court will not modify another state’s custody decree unless the Michigan court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination and either (1) the court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that a Michigan court would be a more convenient forum or (2) neither the child, the child’s parent, nor a person acting as a parent resides in the other state.
Determining jurisdiction. A Michigan court has jurisdiction over a custody dispute if one of the following jurisdictional bases is met:
Home state jurisdiction. Either the child and at least one parent have resided in Michigan for at least six consecutive months (or since birth if the child is less than six months old) or the child is absent from Michigan, but Michigan was the child’s home state within six months before the proceedings began, and a parent continues to live in Michigan.
Significant connection jurisdiction. No other state has home state jurisdiction, the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with Michigan and there is substantial evidence available in Michigan concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. If a court exerts jurisdiction under this basis without deferring to the child’s home state, its order will not be afforded full faith and credit.
Temporary emergency jurisdiction. The child is present in Michigan and there is an emergency requiring the court to act. There is an emergency if the child has been abandoned or it is necessary to protect a child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, “is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”
Last resort jurisdiction. No other state has jurisdiction or another state with jurisdiction has declined to exercise it.
Deferring jurisdiction. Michigan will not exercise jurisdiction if a custody proceeding has been commenced in another state when the petition is filed.
If the other state stays proceedings because Michigan is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons, or if an emergency requires temporary action, Michigan may exercise jurisdiction.
In an emergency, the court must communicate with the other state’s court with pending jurisdiction to avoid a problem with the prohibition on exercising jurisdiction when there is a pending proceeding.
Declining jurisdiction. A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction even after determining it has jurisdiction.
Considerations include
whether domestic violence has occurred,
the length of time the child has resided outside Michigan,
the distance between the Michigan court and the court in the state that would assume
jurisdiction,
the parties’ relative financial circumstances, and
the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation.
International custody disputes.
The general policies of the UCCJEA extend to international custody disputes. Foreign custody judgments rendered by legal institutions and appropriate authorities are recognized and enforced in Michigan under the same policies applied to other states.
The Hague Convention. The Hague Convention applies to disputes between parties from signatory nations in cases where a child is wrongfully removed or retained by the noncustodial parent as well as in cases where the custodial parent refuses to grant visitation or access rights.
A civil action is filed where the child is located at the time of filing.
State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
A petitioner seeking the return of a child has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was wrongfully removed or retained or that visitation rights are being wrongfully denied. The standard is not the best interests of the child.
A finding of wrongful retention requires the return of the child to the other country, where any remaining custody issue is decided.
There are several exceptions to the mandatory return of the child that the respondent can establish,
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Friday, April 30, 2010
WAYNE COUNTY JUDGE TAKES CHILD FROM DAD!
CHILD CUSTODY BATTLES.
Divorce Lawyer discusses several Divorce Issues:
CHILD CUSTODY IN THE NEWS AND A RECENT OPINION OF THE MICHIGAN APPELLATE COURT
Child Custody battles are common place. The most notable are media celebrities. If it can happen to them it can happen to you.
JON GOSSLIN STOPS CUSTODY BATTLE WITH KATE GOSSELINAccording to TMZ.com the octodad is planning to drop his custody and child support lawsuit against ex Kate Gosselin.[2]He has reportedly hired a new lawyer since firing his former attorney, Anthony List, the man who called Kate an "absentee mom" and filed legal papers on behalf of Jon seeking full custody of their kids.[2]"Jon has retained a new lawyer and they're now trying to work out an arrangement that is both private and between themselves," a source told E! Online.[2]Since there is a noticeably large difference between Jon and Kate's income, the exes are reportedly working together to revise the custody and child support agreement that is currently in action.[2]
SANDRA BULLOCK TO NOT SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OF JESSE JAMESActress Sandra Bullock will not be fighting for the custody of love rat husband Jesse James children.. [4]‘The Blind Side’ actress dumped Jesse after a string of his affairs surfaced last month. And despite her mother -role in the lives of his three children, Bullock’s rep revealed that there would not be a custody battle. [4]
RODRIGUEZ WINS CUSTODY CHANGE AND GETS HIS SON… because the two weren't married, Tina Helfer had automatic custody and legally Richard Rodriguez could do nothing to get his child back."I had no rights," Rodriguez says.[3]The tables turned in November of 2009 and the court awarded Rodriguez full custody. [[3]As for Helfer, the Berkshire County District Attorney's office says she won't be facing charges. The office says the "woman had legal custody of Ricky when she left Massachusetts. A year and a half later we hear about a custody change. Our understanding is that this woman had no notice of the change. Therefore, she is not knowingly involved in any criminal violation."[3]
THIS FAMILY LAW CASE FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY DIVISION SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE PARENT DENYS PARENTING TIME CUSTODY CAN BE LOST.
Custody; The Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Fletcher v. Fletcher; Phillips v. Jordan; Reed v. Reed; [1]Exclusion of evidence related to the defendant-mother's criminal history; [1]
Distinction between evidence to be considered in evaluating the statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23) and evidence admissible in determining whether a "change of circumstances" has occurred; Brausch v. Brausch; MRE 609(c); [1]
Challenges to the trial court's findings on best interest factors (b), (c), (f), and (h); [1]
Principle the best interest factors do not need to be given equal weight; McCain v. McCain; Pierron v. Pierron; Challenge to the trial court's finding "clear and convincing evidence" supported modifying custody; MCL 722.28; MCL 722.27(1)(c); [1]
Whether the trial court considered the parties' ability to cooperate in granting joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a; Fisher v. Fisher; Nielsen v. Nielsen; The parenting time schedule.[1]
The Michigan Court of Appeals decided the trial court’s ( Wayne Circuit Court Family Division) factual findings on the best interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody to grant the parties joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children and setting a parenting time schedule. [1]
THIS IS A POST JUDGEMENT ACTIONThe parties separated in 2005.
WHILE DIVORCE UNDERWAY MOM GETS IN FIGHT WITH DADS GIRLFRIENDThe children resided with defendant -MOTHER, until July 2006 when, during thependency of the divorce proceedings, defendant was arrested and charged with domesticviolence, assault and robbery pertaining to an incident involving plaintiff and his girlfriend. Following this incident, plaintiff was granted temporary physical custody of the minor children.[1]
DAD GET GIRLFRIEND AND CHILDAfter this incident, plaintiff-FATHER was granted temporary physical custody of the children.[1]
DIVORCE JUDGE THOUGHT MOM GOING TO JAILIn April 2007, the parties were divorced via a consent judgment which, in anticipation of defendant's incarceration due to the July 2006 incident, awarded plaintiff -FATHER temporary legal custody with defendant to have parenting time. [1]
MOM THOUGHT THAT WHEN OUT OF JAIL SHE COULD GET HER CHILD BACKThe judgment provided defendant was to petition the trial court for reinstatement of joint legal custody and additional parenting time after the end of her jail sentence and on showing her compliance with any probation requirements. [1]
MOM IN JAIL 9 DAYS THEN ON TETHERShe was sentenced to a year in jail with work release, but was only required to serve nine days and was released on a tether. She reportedly complied with her probation requirements. [1]
DAD SAID NO PARENTING TIME FOR DAD Despite the fact defendant did not remain incarcerated and was available, plaintiff denied her parenting time. [1]
COURT FOUND DAD IN CONTEMPTWhile the parties entered into a consent order detailing defendant's parenting time, the trial court later found plaintiff-FATHER in contempt for failing to cooperate and for ongoing violation of the parenting time schedule. [1]In essence, the trial court determined that defendant’s compliance with the terms of herprobation in conjunction with the “ongoing conflict between the parents . . . and the apparent interference . . . regarding mother exercising any parenting time with the children, and the impact that such conflict was having on the minor children” necessitated a review of the existing custody arrangement.[1]
MOM SAYS JUDGE THIS IS NOT WORKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAS TO BE ORDEREDDefendant-MOTHER filed a motion for change of custody, seeking joint legal and physical custody. [1]
JUDGE SAYS TO MOM THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND I WILL LISTEN TO WHAN YOU HAVE TO SAYThe trial court, Wayne Circuit Court Family Divison, determined proper cause and a sufficient change in circumstances existed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard to decide if a modification in custody was in the children's best interests. [1]
[I]n order to establish a “change of circumstances,” a movant must prove that,since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of thechild, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being,have materially changed. [Brausch v Brasuch, 283 Mich App 339, 355-356; 770NW2d 77 (2009), citing Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 512-514;675 NW2d 847 (2003) (emphasis added).][1]
NOT ALL FACTORS IN LIFE ARE EQUAL IN IMPORTANCEThe court MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS noted while plaintiff - FATHER contested the trial court's finding on factor (f), this factor was found to be in his favor and it appeared he misconstrued the precept the factors do not need to be given equal weight. [1]
AFTER INITIAL HURDEL IS MET BY THE CHANGING PARTY THE COURT MUST ANALYIZE THE STATUATORY BEST INTERES FACTORSAs to the other challenged factors, the court concluded the trial court's findings the parties were equal on (b) and (h) while (c) favored defendant were not against the great weight of the evidence. Factor (j) was clearly important to the trial court in weighing the children's best interests. [1]
I THINK J IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SAID THE JUDGEThe trial court, WAYNE, ruled (j) strongly favored defendant and was entitled to "significant weight" in the overall balancing of the factors. [1]Finding the existence of an established custodial environment with plaintiff, the trialcourt properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether an alteration in custody was in the best interests of the children. In evaluating the best interest factors, the trial court found that the parties were equal on seven of the 12 factors.2 Plaintiff was favored on factors (d) [time child has lived in a stable environment] and (f) [moral fitness of the parties]. Defendant was also favored on two factors: (c) [capacity to provide for material needs of child] and (j) [willingness to cooperate and foster relationship]. Although the trial court met, in camera, [ IN JUDGES OFFICE PROBABLY] with both minor children, only the older child was determined to be of sufficient age to express a reasonable preference.3 Following its analysis of the best interest factors, the trial court concluded that custody would be modified so that plaintiff and defendant would have joint legal and physical custody of the minor children and a parenting schedule was delineated. [1]Clearly, of significant importance to the trial court in weighing the best interests of theminor children was factor (j), which comprises “the willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent/child relationship between the child and the other party.” Reviewing the history of these parties, the trial court noted that defendant had provided “liberal access” of the minor children to plaintiff when they were originally in her custody. However, citing the history of interaction following the award of physical custody to plaintiff and the necessity of a show cause hearing resulting in finding plaintiff in contempt of court for repeated violation of parenting time orders, the trial court emphasized that plaintiff wasfound to have “demonstrated a clear pattern of denying parenting time . . . despite the negative impact that this has on the children.” In addition, the trial court observed that plaintiff had “continued to interfere” with defendant’s parenting time with the minor children through scheduling their participation in various activities and camps during defendant’s “scheduled weekends” without consultation or agreement beforehand. The trial court also determined that plaintiff was unwilling to promote the relationship between defendant and the minor children by systematically denying her access to educational and health information and appointments or activities, precluding her participation in meaningful aspects of the children’s lives. As such, thetrial court ruled that this factor strongly favored defendant and would be given “significant weight” in the overall balancing of the best interest factors in evaluating the modification of custody.[1]
MOM WINS AND GETS CUSTODY BACKThe court concluded the trial court's decision was based on clear and convincing evidence the change in custody would facilitate an ongoing relationship between the children and both parents, and was in the children's best interests. Affirmed. [1]
Posted here 4/29/10 byTerry R. BankertFlint Divorce Attorney
http://attorneybankert.com
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished, 04/20/2010)Case Name: G v. G, e-Journal Number: 45601, No. 293817 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division Michigan, LC No. 06-605226-DM
[2]http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_jon_gosselin_drops_custody_lawsuit_against_exwife_kate_couple_ordered_to_take_pa.html[3]http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Father-and-son-reunited-after-custody-battle/m6JPjB8Wg06hNjZcoATQyA.cspx
[4]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Sandra-will-not-battle-for-Jesses-kids-/articleshow/5868052.cms
Divorce Lawyer discusses several Divorce Issues:
CHILD CUSTODY IN THE NEWS AND A RECENT OPINION OF THE MICHIGAN APPELLATE COURT
Child Custody battles are common place. The most notable are media celebrities. If it can happen to them it can happen to you.
JON GOSSLIN STOPS CUSTODY BATTLE WITH KATE GOSSELINAccording to TMZ.com the octodad is planning to drop his custody and child support lawsuit against ex Kate Gosselin.[2]He has reportedly hired a new lawyer since firing his former attorney, Anthony List, the man who called Kate an "absentee mom" and filed legal papers on behalf of Jon seeking full custody of their kids.[2]"Jon has retained a new lawyer and they're now trying to work out an arrangement that is both private and between themselves," a source told E! Online.[2]Since there is a noticeably large difference between Jon and Kate's income, the exes are reportedly working together to revise the custody and child support agreement that is currently in action.[2]
SANDRA BULLOCK TO NOT SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OF JESSE JAMESActress Sandra Bullock will not be fighting for the custody of love rat husband Jesse James children.. [4]‘The Blind Side’ actress dumped Jesse after a string of his affairs surfaced last month. And despite her mother -role in the lives of his three children, Bullock’s rep revealed that there would not be a custody battle. [4]
RODRIGUEZ WINS CUSTODY CHANGE AND GETS HIS SON… because the two weren't married, Tina Helfer had automatic custody and legally Richard Rodriguez could do nothing to get his child back."I had no rights," Rodriguez says.[3]The tables turned in November of 2009 and the court awarded Rodriguez full custody. [[3]As for Helfer, the Berkshire County District Attorney's office says she won't be facing charges. The office says the "woman had legal custody of Ricky when she left Massachusetts. A year and a half later we hear about a custody change. Our understanding is that this woman had no notice of the change. Therefore, she is not knowingly involved in any criminal violation."[3]
THIS FAMILY LAW CASE FROM WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT FAMILY DIVISION SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE PARENT DENYS PARENTING TIME CUSTODY CAN BE LOST.
Custody; The Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Fletcher v. Fletcher; Phillips v. Jordan; Reed v. Reed; [1]Exclusion of evidence related to the defendant-mother's criminal history; [1]
Distinction between evidence to be considered in evaluating the statutory "best interest" factors (MCL 722.23) and evidence admissible in determining whether a "change of circumstances" has occurred; Brausch v. Brausch; MRE 609(c); [1]
Challenges to the trial court's findings on best interest factors (b), (c), (f), and (h); [1]
Principle the best interest factors do not need to be given equal weight; McCain v. McCain; Pierron v. Pierron; Challenge to the trial court's finding "clear and convincing evidence" supported modifying custody; MCL 722.28; MCL 722.27(1)(c); [1]
Whether the trial court considered the parties' ability to cooperate in granting joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a; Fisher v. Fisher; Nielsen v. Nielsen; The parenting time schedule.[1]
The Michigan Court of Appeals decided the trial court’s ( Wayne Circuit Court Family Division) factual findings on the best interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying custody to grant the parties joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children and setting a parenting time schedule. [1]
THIS IS A POST JUDGEMENT ACTIONThe parties separated in 2005.
WHILE DIVORCE UNDERWAY MOM GETS IN FIGHT WITH DADS GIRLFRIENDThe children resided with defendant -MOTHER, until July 2006 when, during thependency of the divorce proceedings, defendant was arrested and charged with domesticviolence, assault and robbery pertaining to an incident involving plaintiff and his girlfriend. Following this incident, plaintiff was granted temporary physical custody of the minor children.[1]
DAD GET GIRLFRIEND AND CHILDAfter this incident, plaintiff-FATHER was granted temporary physical custody of the children.[1]
DIVORCE JUDGE THOUGHT MOM GOING TO JAILIn April 2007, the parties were divorced via a consent judgment which, in anticipation of defendant's incarceration due to the July 2006 incident, awarded plaintiff -FATHER temporary legal custody with defendant to have parenting time. [1]
MOM THOUGHT THAT WHEN OUT OF JAIL SHE COULD GET HER CHILD BACKThe judgment provided defendant was to petition the trial court for reinstatement of joint legal custody and additional parenting time after the end of her jail sentence and on showing her compliance with any probation requirements. [1]
MOM IN JAIL 9 DAYS THEN ON TETHERShe was sentenced to a year in jail with work release, but was only required to serve nine days and was released on a tether. She reportedly complied with her probation requirements. [1]
DAD SAID NO PARENTING TIME FOR DAD Despite the fact defendant did not remain incarcerated and was available, plaintiff denied her parenting time. [1]
COURT FOUND DAD IN CONTEMPTWhile the parties entered into a consent order detailing defendant's parenting time, the trial court later found plaintiff-FATHER in contempt for failing to cooperate and for ongoing violation of the parenting time schedule. [1]In essence, the trial court determined that defendant’s compliance with the terms of herprobation in conjunction with the “ongoing conflict between the parents . . . and the apparent interference . . . regarding mother exercising any parenting time with the children, and the impact that such conflict was having on the minor children” necessitated a review of the existing custody arrangement.[1]
MOM SAYS JUDGE THIS IS NOT WORKING SOMETHING DIFFERENT HAS TO BE ORDEREDDefendant-MOTHER filed a motion for change of custody, seeking joint legal and physical custody. [1]
JUDGE SAYS TO MOM THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND I WILL LISTEN TO WHAN YOU HAVE TO SAYThe trial court, Wayne Circuit Court Family Divison, determined proper cause and a sufficient change in circumstances existed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard to decide if a modification in custody was in the children's best interests. [1]
[I]n order to establish a “change of circumstances,” a movant must prove that,since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of thechild, which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being,have materially changed. [Brausch v Brasuch, 283 Mich App 339, 355-356; 770NW2d 77 (2009), citing Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 512-514;675 NW2d 847 (2003) (emphasis added).][1]
NOT ALL FACTORS IN LIFE ARE EQUAL IN IMPORTANCEThe court MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS noted while plaintiff - FATHER contested the trial court's finding on factor (f), this factor was found to be in his favor and it appeared he misconstrued the precept the factors do not need to be given equal weight. [1]
AFTER INITIAL HURDEL IS MET BY THE CHANGING PARTY THE COURT MUST ANALYIZE THE STATUATORY BEST INTERES FACTORSAs to the other challenged factors, the court concluded the trial court's findings the parties were equal on (b) and (h) while (c) favored defendant were not against the great weight of the evidence. Factor (j) was clearly important to the trial court in weighing the children's best interests. [1]
I THINK J IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SAID THE JUDGEThe trial court, WAYNE, ruled (j) strongly favored defendant and was entitled to "significant weight" in the overall balancing of the factors. [1]Finding the existence of an established custodial environment with plaintiff, the trialcourt properly applied a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether an alteration in custody was in the best interests of the children. In evaluating the best interest factors, the trial court found that the parties were equal on seven of the 12 factors.2 Plaintiff was favored on factors (d) [time child has lived in a stable environment] and (f) [moral fitness of the parties]. Defendant was also favored on two factors: (c) [capacity to provide for material needs of child] and (j) [willingness to cooperate and foster relationship]. Although the trial court met, in camera, [ IN JUDGES OFFICE PROBABLY] with both minor children, only the older child was determined to be of sufficient age to express a reasonable preference.3 Following its analysis of the best interest factors, the trial court concluded that custody would be modified so that plaintiff and defendant would have joint legal and physical custody of the minor children and a parenting schedule was delineated. [1]Clearly, of significant importance to the trial court in weighing the best interests of theminor children was factor (j), which comprises “the willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent/child relationship between the child and the other party.” Reviewing the history of these parties, the trial court noted that defendant had provided “liberal access” of the minor children to plaintiff when they were originally in her custody. However, citing the history of interaction following the award of physical custody to plaintiff and the necessity of a show cause hearing resulting in finding plaintiff in contempt of court for repeated violation of parenting time orders, the trial court emphasized that plaintiff wasfound to have “demonstrated a clear pattern of denying parenting time . . . despite the negative impact that this has on the children.” In addition, the trial court observed that plaintiff had “continued to interfere” with defendant’s parenting time with the minor children through scheduling their participation in various activities and camps during defendant’s “scheduled weekends” without consultation or agreement beforehand. The trial court also determined that plaintiff was unwilling to promote the relationship between defendant and the minor children by systematically denying her access to educational and health information and appointments or activities, precluding her participation in meaningful aspects of the children’s lives. As such, thetrial court ruled that this factor strongly favored defendant and would be given “significant weight” in the overall balancing of the best interest factors in evaluating the modification of custody.[1]
MOM WINS AND GETS CUSTODY BACKThe court concluded the trial court's decision was based on clear and convincing evidence the change in custody would facilitate an ongoing relationship between the children and both parents, and was in the children's best interests. Affirmed. [1]
Posted here 4/29/10 byTerry R. BankertFlint Divorce Attorney
http://attorneybankert.com
[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished, 04/20/2010)Case Name: G v. G, e-Journal Number: 45601, No. 293817 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division Michigan, LC No. 06-605226-DM
[2]http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_jon_gosselin_drops_custody_lawsuit_against_exwife_kate_couple_ordered_to_take_pa.html[3]http://www.fox23news.com/news/local/story/Father-and-son-reunited-after-custody-battle/m6JPjB8Wg06hNjZcoATQyA.cspx
[4]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Sandra-will-not-battle-for-Jesses-kids-/articleshow/5868052.cms
Monday, April 26, 2010
Domestic Violence is not accepted in Wayne County
FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER BANKERT COMMENTS ON KIM KARDASHIAN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. POINT OF VIEW:IF THIS HAPPENED IN MICHIGAN.
4/26/2010
Terry Bankert a Flint Michigan Divorce Attorney comments on the following celebrity domestic relations and the issue implications from a Michigan Family Law view.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
New divorce court papers reveal Kim Kardashian's tumultuous relationship with ex-husband and music producer Damon Thomas, including the claim that Thomas punched Kardashian in the face and slammed her against the wall. [1]
DID YOU KNOW: Domestic violence happens when one household member , spouse , romantic interest or just room mate, chooses to use a pattern of physical assaults, threats of violence, and emotional abuse to maintain power and control over another.
Americas 50 states all have statutes authorizing courts to issue orders of protection to domestic violence victims.
NO POLICE CALLS, NO PPO
Why no police reports? Abject fear. "I thought about calling the police but was afraid and decided not to do so," Kardashian reported.[4]
In Michigan, a victim of domestic violence has the option of obtaining a personal protection order (PPO) to stop abusive behavior. PPOs may order a stop to specific actions, such as assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, stalking, or wounding the petitioner. Additionaly, they may prohibit entering specific premises, usually including the petitioner’s home and place of employment. PPO’s may also prohibit the removal of minor children from the legal custodian, purchasing or possessing a firearm, and any other act that interferes with the petitioner’s personal liberty or that causes a reasonable fear of violence.
CONTROLLING
The papers also claim that Thomas gave her $3,650 to get liposuction, because he wanted her to be "perfect." [1]
During their divorce in 2004, Kim revealed in a sworn testimony that she was instructed to have liposuction, was treated like a maid and that music producer Damon had threatened to kill her.[3]
DOMINATING
"Damon decided what we would do and when we would do it. He was very much the 'King of the castle," Kardashian stated in the documents. [1]
THEATS OF VIOLENCE TO HER FAMILY
"He threatened to kill me, my family members and the guys that I am dating."
But that wasn't the only threat against her life, he repeated it at least 12 times. "At this point, I am frightened by the stories that are repeated to me." [2]
INDICATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior whose purpose is to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation, often including the threat or use of violence. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at http://www.ncadv.org.
Domestic Violence is not limited to physical violence, abusers may use many forms of control against their partners, including
isolation from friends and family;
verbal abuse (belittlement, taunting);
intimidation (destroying property, abusing pets, displaying firearms);
economic abuse (controlling access to money, preventing or interfering with employment);
coercion (threatening to commit suicide or to report incidents to protective services);
use of the children (harassment during parenting time, threatening to kidnap the children);
sexual abuse; and
stalking.
SHOULD SHE HAVE SOUGHT A PPO?
Nobody has a right to hit you. But you have to act. A PPO is one way.
PPOs have two types that may be issued, depending on the relationship between the parties. A domestic relationship PPO enjoins certain assaultive and threatening behaviors when there is a domestic relationship between the parties. A domestic relationship exists if the parties are or have been married, have had a child in common, have lived together, or have dated.
WHAT BEHAVIOR CAN A PPO STOP OR AT LEAST GIVE THE POLICE A REASON TO ARREST?
What acts may a domestic relationship PPO restrict? Petitioners may request that the court prohibit respondents from the following:
(a) Entering onto premises.
(b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a named individual.
(c) Threatening to kill or physically injure a named individual.
(d) Removing minor children from the individual having legal custody of the children.
(e) Purchasing or possessing a firearm.
(f) Interfering with petitioner’s efforts to remove petitioner’s children or personal property from premises that are solely owned or leased by respondent.
(g) Interfering with petitioner at petitioner’s place of employment or education or engaging in conduct that impairs petitioner’s employment or educational relationship or environment.
(h) Having access to information in records concerning a minor child of both petitioner and respondent that will inform respondent about the address or telephone number of petitioner and petitioner’s minor child or about petitioner’s employment address.
(i) Engaging in conduct that is prohibited under section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code (stalking).
(j) Any other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence.
MCL 600.2950(1).
SHORT TERM MARRAIGE
The two were marred in Las Vegas when Kardashian was 19, Thomas 29. They divorced three years later.[1]
Posted here by
Terry Bankert
WWW.ATTORNEYBANKERT.COM
SEE
[1]
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/slideshow/survivors-abuse-7057338
[2]
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Kardashian-s-bad-marriage/H1-Article1-535226.aspx
[3]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/04/24/court-papers-reveal-kim-kardashian-s-abusive-four-year-marriage-115875-22208181/
[4]
http://www.sheknows.com/articles/814830/kim-kardashian-papers-detail-abuse-at-hands-of-ex-1
4/26/2010
Terry Bankert a Flint Michigan Divorce Attorney comments on the following celebrity domestic relations and the issue implications from a Michigan Family Law view.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
New divorce court papers reveal Kim Kardashian's tumultuous relationship with ex-husband and music producer Damon Thomas, including the claim that Thomas punched Kardashian in the face and slammed her against the wall. [1]
DID YOU KNOW: Domestic violence happens when one household member , spouse , romantic interest or just room mate, chooses to use a pattern of physical assaults, threats of violence, and emotional abuse to maintain power and control over another.
Americas 50 states all have statutes authorizing courts to issue orders of protection to domestic violence victims.
NO POLICE CALLS, NO PPO
Why no police reports? Abject fear. "I thought about calling the police but was afraid and decided not to do so," Kardashian reported.[4]
In Michigan, a victim of domestic violence has the option of obtaining a personal protection order (PPO) to stop abusive behavior. PPOs may order a stop to specific actions, such as assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, stalking, or wounding the petitioner. Additionaly, they may prohibit entering specific premises, usually including the petitioner’s home and place of employment. PPO’s may also prohibit the removal of minor children from the legal custodian, purchasing or possessing a firearm, and any other act that interferes with the petitioner’s personal liberty or that causes a reasonable fear of violence.
CONTROLLING
The papers also claim that Thomas gave her $3,650 to get liposuction, because he wanted her to be "perfect." [1]
During their divorce in 2004, Kim revealed in a sworn testimony that she was instructed to have liposuction, was treated like a maid and that music producer Damon had threatened to kill her.[3]
DOMINATING
"Damon decided what we would do and when we would do it. He was very much the 'King of the castle," Kardashian stated in the documents. [1]
THEATS OF VIOLENCE TO HER FAMILY
"He threatened to kill me, my family members and the guys that I am dating."
But that wasn't the only threat against her life, he repeated it at least 12 times. "At this point, I am frightened by the stories that are repeated to me." [2]
INDICATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior whose purpose is to establish power and control over another person through fear and intimidation, often including the threat or use of violence. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at http://www.ncadv.org.
Domestic Violence is not limited to physical violence, abusers may use many forms of control against their partners, including
isolation from friends and family;
verbal abuse (belittlement, taunting);
intimidation (destroying property, abusing pets, displaying firearms);
economic abuse (controlling access to money, preventing or interfering with employment);
coercion (threatening to commit suicide or to report incidents to protective services);
use of the children (harassment during parenting time, threatening to kidnap the children);
sexual abuse; and
stalking.
SHOULD SHE HAVE SOUGHT A PPO?
Nobody has a right to hit you. But you have to act. A PPO is one way.
PPOs have two types that may be issued, depending on the relationship between the parties. A domestic relationship PPO enjoins certain assaultive and threatening behaviors when there is a domestic relationship between the parties. A domestic relationship exists if the parties are or have been married, have had a child in common, have lived together, or have dated.
WHAT BEHAVIOR CAN A PPO STOP OR AT LEAST GIVE THE POLICE A REASON TO ARREST?
What acts may a domestic relationship PPO restrict? Petitioners may request that the court prohibit respondents from the following:
(a) Entering onto premises.
(b) Assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding a named individual.
(c) Threatening to kill or physically injure a named individual.
(d) Removing minor children from the individual having legal custody of the children.
(e) Purchasing or possessing a firearm.
(f) Interfering with petitioner’s efforts to remove petitioner’s children or personal property from premises that are solely owned or leased by respondent.
(g) Interfering with petitioner at petitioner’s place of employment or education or engaging in conduct that impairs petitioner’s employment or educational relationship or environment.
(h) Having access to information in records concerning a minor child of both petitioner and respondent that will inform respondent about the address or telephone number of petitioner and petitioner’s minor child or about petitioner’s employment address.
(i) Engaging in conduct that is prohibited under section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code (stalking).
(j) Any other specific act or conduct that imposes upon or interferes with personal liberty or that causes a reasonable apprehension of violence.
MCL 600.2950(1).
SHORT TERM MARRAIGE
The two were marred in Las Vegas when Kardashian was 19, Thomas 29. They divorced three years later.[1]
Posted here by
Terry Bankert
WWW.ATTORNEYBANKERT.COM
SEE
[1]
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/slideshow/survivors-abuse-7057338
[2]
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Kardashian-s-bad-marriage/H1-Article1-535226.aspx
[3]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/04/24/court-papers-reveal-kim-kardashian-s-abusive-four-year-marriage-115875-22208181/
[4]
http://www.sheknows.com/articles/814830/kim-kardashian-papers-detail-abuse-at-hands-of-ex-1
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Divorce Property Settlement
My name is Terry Bankert. I am a Flint Divorce Lawyer.
Did you know?
That a Flint Divorce or one in your area to be enforceable, a settlement must be placed on the record or memorialized in writing. MCR 2.507(G); see also Marshall v Marshall, 135 Mich App 702, 712–713, 355 NW2d 661 (1984); Massachusetts Indem & Life Ins Co v Thomas, 206 Mich App 265, 520 NW2d 708 (1994). Verbal agreement between the spouses are not enforceable.
A Flint Divorce area Court and your Courts are bound by property settlements reached through negotiation and agreement absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake. Lentz v Lentz, 271 Mich App 465, 721 NW2d 861 (2006); Keyser v Keyser, 182 Mich App 268, 451 NW2d 587 (1990). The Court system wants you to make your own decisions.
In one case called Lentz, the court stated “[W]e will not rewrite or abrogate an unambiguous agreement negotiated and signed by consenting adults by imposing a ‘reasonable’ or ‘equitable’ inquiry on the enforceability of such agreements.” 271 Mich App at 478. When you have an agreement, write it down and sign it.
As a Flint Divorce Lawyer our court acts like your Family Law Court.In reviewing a property settlement agreement, the court must consider whether the agreement was entered into and signed freely, voluntarily, and understandingly, not whether the settlement is equitable. Lentz; Keyser. Do not bully your spouse into submission.
If the Flint Divorce Court or your local Court does not approve the proposed settlement, it must give the parties an opportunity to present proofs before judgment can be entered. Jones v Jones, 132 Mich App 497, 347 NW2d 756 (1984); Watson v Watson, 204 Mich App 318, 322, 514 NW2d 533 (1994). Once approved, however, modifications of property settlements in divorce judgments are disfavored. In Flint Divorce and elsewhere when you say it to the Judge in open court you are committed to its terms.
Where a settlement agreement is not merged into the judgment, parties retain a number of powerful remedies to enforce their agreement and remedies for fraud. These remedies are not available when a settlement is embodied directly in a judgment without a separate agreement. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich App 132, 701 NW2d 167 (2005); Grace v Grace, 253 Mich App 357, 655 NW2d 595 (2002).
Except for the important distinction between merged and nonmerged settlement agreements, most of the attributes of a settlement agreement apply equally to consent judgments and vice versa. See Thornton v Thornton, 277 Mich App 453, 746 NW2d 627 (2007) (consent judgment is contract and will be enforced absent factors such as fraud or duress).
Did you know?
That a Flint Divorce or one in your area to be enforceable, a settlement must be placed on the record or memorialized in writing. MCR 2.507(G); see also Marshall v Marshall, 135 Mich App 702, 712–713, 355 NW2d 661 (1984); Massachusetts Indem & Life Ins Co v Thomas, 206 Mich App 265, 520 NW2d 708 (1994). Verbal agreement between the spouses are not enforceable.
A Flint Divorce area Court and your Courts are bound by property settlements reached through negotiation and agreement absent fraud, duress, or mutual mistake. Lentz v Lentz, 271 Mich App 465, 721 NW2d 861 (2006); Keyser v Keyser, 182 Mich App 268, 451 NW2d 587 (1990). The Court system wants you to make your own decisions.
In one case called Lentz, the court stated “[W]e will not rewrite or abrogate an unambiguous agreement negotiated and signed by consenting adults by imposing a ‘reasonable’ or ‘equitable’ inquiry on the enforceability of such agreements.” 271 Mich App at 478. When you have an agreement, write it down and sign it.
As a Flint Divorce Lawyer our court acts like your Family Law Court.In reviewing a property settlement agreement, the court must consider whether the agreement was entered into and signed freely, voluntarily, and understandingly, not whether the settlement is equitable. Lentz; Keyser. Do not bully your spouse into submission.
If the Flint Divorce Court or your local Court does not approve the proposed settlement, it must give the parties an opportunity to present proofs before judgment can be entered. Jones v Jones, 132 Mich App 497, 347 NW2d 756 (1984); Watson v Watson, 204 Mich App 318, 322, 514 NW2d 533 (1994). Once approved, however, modifications of property settlements in divorce judgments are disfavored. In Flint Divorce and elsewhere when you say it to the Judge in open court you are committed to its terms.
Where a settlement agreement is not merged into the judgment, parties retain a number of powerful remedies to enforce their agreement and remedies for fraud. These remedies are not available when a settlement is embodied directly in a judgment without a separate agreement. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich App 132, 701 NW2d 167 (2005); Grace v Grace, 253 Mich App 357, 655 NW2d 595 (2002).
Except for the important distinction between merged and nonmerged settlement agreements, most of the attributes of a settlement agreement apply equally to consent judgments and vice versa. See Thornton v Thornton, 277 Mich App 453, 746 NW2d 627 (2007) (consent judgment is contract and will be enforced absent factors such as fraud or duress).
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joint Physical Custody
If you are about to file for divorce did you know that you have a right to Joint physical custody. Contact a divorce attorney to find out how to protect that right. Many men in Wayne county , just trying to do the right thing, walk away from that right. Contact a divorce Lawyer to find out your rights.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Wayne County
Wayne
http://www.waynecounty.com/
600 Randolph, Suite 406Detroit, MI 48226(313) 224-0286
Area: 614 smEst: 1796Pop: 2,061,162Pop/sm: 3,356.1Seat: Detroit
http://www.waynecounty.com/
600 Randolph, Suite 406Detroit, MI 48226(313) 224-0286
Area: 614 smEst: 1796Pop: 2,061,162Pop/sm: 3,356.1Seat: Detroit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
