Court will not change Parenting Time

DAD REPORTS TO CPS COURT WILL NOT CHANGE PARENTING TIME

By Terry R. Bankert Attorney At Law. 810-235-1970

As a Flint Divorce Attorney often parents want to change child custody of child parenting time after some bad event occurs. After Legal Representation is sought Lawyers in Flint must be careful to not file motions on issues they cannot prove or that do not rise to a level of importance to justify changes in child custody or child parenting time. The court can cost them money for filing merit less motions.

More importantly that parent will lose credibility which may hurt them in later proceedings. Terry Bankert a Flint family law divorce attorney wrote the following to alert you to sanctions that may occur with frivolous motions.

To find additional article by Bankert goggle "attorneybankert" or "dumpmyspouse"

Issue covered here, (others are in the fullcase):

Whether the fact Child Protective Services (CPS) failed to substantiate evidence of abuse or neglect signified the plaintiff-father's emergency motion totally lacked merit or was not well-grounded in fact; Jerico Constr., Inc. v. Quadrants, Inc.;

DAD FILES EMERGENCY MOTION AFTER MOM ASKED THE COURT TO LIMIT DADS PARENTING TIME.

The parents present dispute arose from a November 2006 motion plaintiff father John David Langlois filed seeking to temporarily suspend defendant's , mother Constance Moore Langlois, parenting time pending the initiation of a CPS investigation into her living conditions, and defendant's motion to limit plaintiff to supervised visitation.

THE COURT APPOINTS A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The trial court appointed a GAL because it found the parties could not resolve their differences in the child's best interests, and reserved ruling on who would pay the GAL's fees.

APPEALS COURT SAYS OAKLAND COURT GOT IT RIGHT

The Michigan Court of Appeals court concluded the Oakland County trial court did not clearly err in finding plaintiff's motion had a meritorious basis.

CHILD SAYS MOM AND BOY FRIEND SUFFERED DRUNKENNESS, TEACHER REPORTS

Father/ Plaintiff primarily premised the motion on the fact the child had recently reported to school personnel drunkenness and verbal abuse, including threats of harm, by defendant and her fiancé, which prompted a CPS referral. While defendant disputed whether the child reported her concerns to each of the school personnel identified in plaintiff's motion, the parties did not dispute the fact the child made such reports to a teacher, those reports (if true) reflected defendant's home was unfit, and the teacher reported the matter to the CPS.

CPS INVESTIGATED AND COULD NOT FIND/PROVE ANYTHING WRONG

The fact the CPS failed to substantiate evidence of abuse or neglect did not mean plaintiff's emergency motion totally lacked merit or was not well-grounded in fact.

MOM DID NOT SAY DAD OR HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT DO HOMEWORK FIRST

Defendant produced no evidence indicating plaintiff or his attorney failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the circumstances supporting the motion, or at the time they filed the motion, they knew or had reason to believe the child's reports were untrue. Affirmed.
—
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , JOHN DAVID LANGLOIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,UNPUBLISHED , October 30, 2008, v No. 280764, Oakland Circuit Court
CONSTANCE MOORE LANGLOIS, LC No. 1999-626705-DM, Defendant-Appellant.
e-Journal Number: 40910, Judge(s): Per Curiam - O'Connell, Smolenski, and Gleicher
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Gleicher, JJ.,PER CURIAM. The lesson here is drawn from this case. Since this posting is for media use, blog, radio etc do not rely on its content without the help of a lawyer or looking at the original document.
___

Defendant HAD filed a motion for sanctions, asserting that plaintiff had filed his November 2006 motion in violation of MCR 2.114(E) and (F).

*A party or the party’s attorney must sign every document that the party files in an action.
MCR 2.114©)(1). That signature constitutes a certification that, among other things, "to the
best of [the signer’s] knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the
document is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for
the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law," and has not been filed "for any
improper purpose." MCR 2.114(D)(2), (3).

*A document signed in violation of subrule (D) subjects the signer, "a represented party, or both" to sanctions, including reasonable attorney fees. MCR 2.114(E). The imposition of a sanction becomes mandatory on a "finding that a pleading was signed in violation of the court rule."1 Contel Systems Corp v Gores, 183 Mich App 706, 710-711; 455 NW2d 398 (1990).

*"To impose a sanction under MCR 2.114(E), the trial court must first find that an
attorney or party has signed a pleading in violation of MCR 2.114(A)-(D)." In re Stafford, 200
Mich App 41, 42; 503 NW2d 678 (1993). Such a determination "depends largely on the facts
and circumstances of the claim." Id. A trial court’s determination that a party violated the court
rule involves a finding of fact by the trial court. Contel Systems, supra at 711.

*The circuit court in this case did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff’s motion had a
meritorious basis. Plaintiff premised the motion primarily on the fact that the parties’ child had
recently reported to school personnel drunkenness and verbal abuse, including threats of harm,
by defendant and her fiancé, which prompted a referral to CPS.

* Although defendant disputed whether the child had reported her concerns to each of the school personnel identified in plaintiff’s motion, the parties did not dispute that the child had made such reports to a teacher, that those reports, if true, reflected that defendant’s home was unfit, and that the teacher reported the matter to CPS.

* That CPS failed to substantiate evidence of neglect or abuse does not signify
that plaintiff’s emergency motion entirely lacked merit or was not well-grounded in fact. Jerico
Constr, Inc v Quadrants, Inc, 257 Mich App 22, 36; 666 NW2d 310 (2003) ("That the alleged
facts are later discovered to be untrue does not invalidate a prior reasonable inquiry.").

*Defendant presented no evidence to suggest that plaintiff or his attorney failed to make a
reasonable inquiry into the circumstances supporting the motion or that, at the time they filed the motion, they knew or had reason to believe that the child’s reports were untrue. Defendant thus failed to show that plaintiff’s emergency motion as a whole was signed in violation of the court rule.

Posted here by
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/