Increasing, decreasing or otherwise changing child visitation times (technically changing parenting time) has made Michigan very easy. As of December 3, 2010, most judges and friends in court referees believe that to get someone more time to parent their child or to restrict parenting time, one must provide proof equivalent to that required to change custody. I have long argued that it does not make sense because parenting time and caring are two very different things. The Michigan Court of Appeals appears to agree and the law is now being revised, or at least more specifically, in that regard.
A brief explanation of the evidence needed to change custody is required. To change Michigan's custody, one must prove by clear and convincing evidence, a very high level of proof, that there has been a change in circumstances or just cause that has occurred since the earliest. or an order regarding custody before a court. despite considering a change in custody.
In addition, types of change of circumstances or right cause are not things that can be considered a normal life change. Normal life changes are things like growing up and wanting to get involved in many activities due to a change in social, sport or activity schedule, remarriage with a spouse , moving to a better home with better equipment, changes in the parent's work environment, very young children starting school or other types of changes. occurs when a child develops and grows.
These types of changes are not usually allowed as proof that a change in precaution should be taken into account as well. Courts and friends of court referees also (in many counties) will also not consider a change in the parenting time schedule, to allow for more or less child visitation, if not equally. type of evidence. Therefore, unless a parent can present as a threshold issue with a serious issue with the children or the parent's caregiver, then their arguments for parenting time changes will not be considered. .
There has never been a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Appeals or a Michigan Supreme Court case that directly addresses it. There have been unpublished opinions from the Court of Appeals, however, unless a case has been published that is not a prelude. What this means is that the trial court and friends of the court referees are not required to follow what the Court of Appeals says in a case on any given issue unless it is a published case. To make it even more confusing, the unnamed cases decided by the Court of Appeals on this issue are in conflict with each other. Some say that one has to prove the same type of threshold issues as to get more child visitation or limit other parent's child time such as one with custody and other opinions. saying that one does not have to prove this issue at the threshold or that the burden of proof is lowering.
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a new published decision on December 3, 2010, Shade v Wright, Mich. App Docket No. 296318 (2010) considering that it has to be, and now in this case, it is easier to change the parenting time schedule than to change custody. This case states that to minimize or increase the child's visit with a parent has a much more relaxed burden of evidence regarding changing circumstances or a proper cause as a threshold issue than with custody. The court went ahead and stated that the changes in normal life as described above are appropriate when deciding on this issue.
on Wright v Shade case quoted above, the change that allowed the mother to renew the child's visit with the father was that their daughter started high school and her schedule of activities changed. This is exactly the kind of change that courts cannot imagine trying to change custody. Many trial courts and friends of the court referees also believed, before this opinion, that it was the class itself to change circumstances that they could not have imagined to allow a change in the addition or limit child visitation. Courts and referees believe that this is wrong and they are expected to pursue this case if they consider these issues because Wright v Shade the one that binds forward.
This is of utmost importance for the following reasons. The main concern in determining the custody of the child is the stability of the child's environment and the avoidance of unintentional and disruptive changes in custody arrangements, while contrary to the purpose of the hour Parenting is to foster a strong relationship between the child and the child's parents. Parenting time law states that it is selected in the best interests of the child for the child to have a strong relationship with both parents and that parenting time is given, duration. and the type that makes sense to foster a strong relationship between the child and the parent is provided during parenting.
One should also consider that as children grow up, they are involved in a variety of activities. As a change that is essential to their development, both parents need to change their parenting time schedule such as parental pain. Early in a child's development, a child needs constant contact with each parent, but the duration can be much smaller. As the child gets older the contact becomes less frequent but over a longer period of time. When a child reaches school age, the school and its accompanying activities should be considered. The practical adaptation of a child as the child's schedule and their need for parenting time changes and therefore, the parenting time schedule needs to be updated to address the child's development.
Parenting time is for the child, not the parent as the parent enjoys the time with the child. Children grow up and as they grow their relationship with each parent is likely to change because they expect to become more independent. As a parent may become ill, their own visit to the child may change so that the child learns to find his or her own path that may make the child spend more or less time. to either parent regardless of whether the court decides or the parent agrees in the past.
CONCLUSION: This information is provided for general educational purposes including answers posted to Ask Cameron questions. It is not intended to rely on legal advice. This information may not be updated to reflect subsequent changes to the law, if any. Your specific information and circumstances, and any changes to the law, should be considered in order to determine the appropriate legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney, licensed by your state, to discuss your particular situation. This information is not intended to create, and accept it is not, a lawyer-client relationship between you and Byers & Goulding, PLC and / or Cameron C. Goulding. Please do not send information to us that you consider confidential if you did not obtain the first one:
- A written statement from us that we represent you (a "continuation letter") and
- Permission from Byers & Goulding, PLC or Cameron C. Goulding to be granted
Our confidential information relates to a particular matter.
This information is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or up to date. It should not be relied upon or implemented as legal advice. You should not act or choose not to act on the basis of this information without seeking professional advice. Byers & Goulding, a PLC office located in Auburn Hills, Michigan. We do not want to represent anyone in any state where information does not comply with all applicable laws and ethics, or represent anyone with respect to legal matters related to those laws. in any state or country where our lawyers are not allowed to practice law.