Posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com dandiebolt
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:42 pm (PDT)
MI Statute: Child Custody Orders Must ‘Promote a Strong Relationship Between the Child and the Parent’
Posted on August 17th, 2010
by Glenn Sacks in All News, Michigan News, Op-ed, US News
The following is an article by Fathers & Families Board Member, Robert Franklin,
Esq.:
(1) Parenting time shall be granted in accordance with the best interests of the child. It is presumed to be in the best interests of a child for the child to have a strong relationship with both of his or her parents. Except as otherwise provided in this section, parenting time shall be granted to a parent in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote a strong relationship between the child and
the parent granted parenting time…(3) A child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health. (Emphasis mine.)
Those are two subsections of the Michigan Child Custody Act of 1970, subchapter 722.27a, section 7a. According to this article, they’re not well known although I can’t imagine why they’re not (Detroit News, 8/11/10). But every Michigan parent who’s involved in a child custody case should be aware that (a) your child has a right to parenting time, (b) the law presumes strong parent-child relationships to be in the child’s best interests and (c) parenting time shall be granted so as to promote that strong parent-child relationship.The article quotes William Reisdorf of Dads and Moms Legal Group asking
...
Robert Franklin, Esq., is a board member of Fathers
& Families, America’s largest family court reform organization. To learn more, see www.fathersandfamilies.org.
http://www.bloggernews.net/125090
Lawmaker fights to change Michigan's Paternity Act
by Jessica Harthorn
Posted: 08.17.2010 at 11:34 PM
FLINT -- We’re continuing to follow a story we first brought you a few weeks ago.
A Fenton father is fighting for custody of his daughter after she was used by her mother's husband to sell drugs.
But an old state law is keeping him from ever having paternity rights.
NBC25 talked with a lawmaker who is trying to change Michigan’s Paternity Act.
Michigan is one of only a handful of state's that doesn't take into consideration DNA testing when
a child is born outside a traditional marriage.
And one father says this has torn his family apart.
...
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=498418
Domestic Relations Review August 2010
A review and summary of recently decided domestic relations cases which have significant impact on the law. The reviews are provided by Berrien County Probate Judge Thomas E. Nelson and Cass County Probate Judge Susan L. Dobrich. The month under which the cases appear are when they are recieved from the authors.
August
WHILE ADMITTEDLY ALTRUISTIC ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT AS AN EFFORT TO AVOID A POTENTIAL DESTRUCTION OF A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO REFUSE TO ALLOW THE PARTIES’ ADULT CHILDREN TO TESTIFY IN A CHILD CUSTODY ACTION INVOLVING THE CHILDREN’S MINOR SIBLINGS
Williamson v. Williamson, (Unpublished, #295134), 7/22/10
WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE MARITAL PROPERTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY COMPENSATE FOR WAGES LOST DURING THE TERM OF THE MARRIAGE. HOWEVER, THOSE BENEFITS WHICH COMPENSATE FOR PRE-MARITAL LOST EARNINGS AND INITIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE INJURED SPOUSE MAY BECOME PART OF THE MARITAL ESTATE AS THEY ARE COMMINGLED WITH OTHER MARITAL AND SEPARATE PROPERTY TO ACCOMPLISH A MARITAL GOAL SUCH AS PURCHASING A HOME FOR THE PARTIES DURING THE MARRIAGE
Cunningham v. Cunningham, ___Mich App___ (2010), #285541, 7/13/10
(1) AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PARENTAGE, SIGNED BY THE PARENTS AND FILED WITH THE STATE REGISTRAR, IS NOT AN “INITIAL CUSTODY DETERMINATION” UNDER THE UCCJEA BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SATISFY THE DEFINITION OF “INITIAL CUSTODY DETERMINATION” AS PROVIDED BY THE UCCJEA. (2) THE UCCJEA DETERMINES WHICH STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO MAKE A CUSTODY DETERMINATION AS THE CHILD’S “HOME STATE”. UNTIL SUCH A DETERMINATION IS MADE THE AGREEMENT IMBODIED IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT REMAINS BINDING ON THE CHILD’S PARENTS
Foster v. Wolkowitz, ___Mich___ (2010), #139872, 7/1/10
http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/review02.htm
Thanks Dan,
Darrick Scott-Farnsworth
Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com
Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287
True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property
No comments:
Post a Comment