QUESTION:My step-son is turning 18 in a few short days. He is a junior in high school. Order states that husband must continue to pay child support until he graduates(which we have no porblem doing), but now mother says the son doesn't have to come to visit on the weekends and/or holidays and the Order states because he is no longer a minor. Is this true? She will not encourage or facilitate meetings between son and I and in fact prevents them as well.
First I will look at how other attorney have responded. The CAPITALIZATION IS MINE.
One attorney responded.
I BELIEVE THE QUESTIONER KNEW THIS
A minor automatically becomes emancipated when he or she turns 18 by operation of law. Michigan law defines "emancipation" as "termination of the rights of the parents to the custody, control, services and earnings of a minor." Therefore, you cannot force your stepson to visit you. However, the statute relating to the emancipation of minors also states that it "does not affect obligations of support imposed under other laws of this state." Thus, your husband must continue to pay child support according to the court order even though your stepson is emancipated.
LATE STAGE PARENTAL ALIENATION. THESE ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD BIG WORDS.
Another attorney responded.
Also, this appears to be a case of very late-stage "parental alienation" which is too bad. Your husband should not give-up trying to maintain contact with his son. He will not be hiding in the folds of his mother's skirt forever. This is a long-term project. For some people, they don't have the maturity and independence to reconnect with a wrongfully alienated parent until their late 20s. In the area of family law, we see this all too often. Good luck.
SO, WHAT SHOULD FATHER DO?
Wait and always be available. Let the young child about to be a legal adult have time to “man-up“. Father should led by example.
The 18th birthdate is not a magic date that erases the emotional harm of the divorce. Your focus should be on the child/adult off spring. There are Studies that indicate the most damaging effect of divorce on children arises early in their adult life. Did you know many children of divorce have trouble finding a mate and creating lasting relationships and marriages themselves. Give the young man some space. Keep the lines of communication open between father and son. Step mom should not complicate the emotional issues for the child/adult by advocating her needs.
THIS IS AN AVVO QUESTION ANSWERED ON 5/1/2010
BY Terry Bankert
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/son-turning-18--support-will-continue-but-what-abo-259210.html
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Child Custody Sandra Bullock, Jessie James ,Gosslin , Rodgriguez and the Michgian Court of Appeals
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 GOSSELIN
According 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 JAMES
Actress 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 ACTION
The parties separated in 2005.
WHILE DIVORCE UNDERWAY MOM GETS IN FIGHT WITH DADS GIRLFRIEND
The children resided with defendant -MOTHER, until July 2006 when, during the
pendency of the divorce proceedings, defendant was arrested and charged with domestic
violence, 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 CHILD
After this incident, plaintiff-FATHER was granted temporary physical custody of the children.[1]
DIVORCE JUDGE THOUGHT MOM GOING TO JAIL
In 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 BACK
The 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 TETHER
She 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 CONTEMPT
While 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 her
probation 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 ORDERED
Defendant-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 SAY
The 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 the
child, 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; 770
NW2d 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 IMPORTANCE
The 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 FACTORS
As 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 JUDGE
The 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 trial
court 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 the
minor 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 was
found 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, the
trial 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 BACK
The 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 by
Terry R. Bankert
Flint 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
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 GOSSELIN
According 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 JAMES
Actress 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 ACTION
The parties separated in 2005.
WHILE DIVORCE UNDERWAY MOM GETS IN FIGHT WITH DADS GIRLFRIEND
The children resided with defendant -MOTHER, until July 2006 when, during the
pendency of the divorce proceedings, defendant was arrested and charged with domestic
violence, 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 CHILD
After this incident, plaintiff-FATHER was granted temporary physical custody of the children.[1]
DIVORCE JUDGE THOUGHT MOM GOING TO JAIL
In 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 BACK
The 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 TETHER
She 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 CONTEMPT
While 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 her
probation 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 ORDERED
Defendant-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 SAY
The 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 the
child, 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; 770
NW2d 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 IMPORTANCE
The 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 FACTORS
As 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 JUDGE
The 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 trial
court 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 the
minor 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 was
found 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, the
trial 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 BACK
The 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 by
Terry R. Bankert
Flint 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
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Jessie James Sandra Bullock divorce and adoption.
Our lives are a bumpy road with happiness being fleeting. Why do we do what we do on a give day. Sandra Bullock and Jessie James spent several years qualifying for adoption of a baby, out of site of the press. The baby adopted in January is African American. Bullock then wins award for nurturing another African American child in a movie. She found her base, Jessie James found several of his. But the aftermath and their conduct Class in discretion of her part and class of responsibility acceptance on his part show them both to be greater than the events of scandal we all following with shallow motive. I view them both as larger now. We can all take lesson on their role model of how to conduct oneself in a divorce. Children and privacy first.
FILING FOR DIVORCE
US Oscar- winning actor Sandra Bullock has filed for divorce to end her five-year marriage to Jesse James, she told People magazine in remarks published on its website yesterday.[1]
In Michigan the requirements of a divorce petition include.
Required provisions for divorce judgments.
All divorce judgments.
A determination of each party’s rights in insurance on the life of the other party.
A release of dower rights.
A determination of each party’s rights in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; contributions to a pension, annuity, or retirement plan; and contingent rights in unvested benefits.
The parties’ rights in property.
A provision granting, reserving, or denying spousal support.
If spousal support is no modifiable, a provision to that effect.
Divorces with minor children—additional required provisions.
A prohibition against moving the children’s residence outside Michigan or, in the case of a joint custody arrangement, a relocation agreement or mandated language prohibiting moving the children’s residence more than 100 miles away.
A requirement that the custodial parent promptly notify the Friend of the Court in writing of any change of the children’s address.
A statement by the court declaring the children’s inherent rights and establishing the rights and duties as to the children’s custody, support, and parenting time.
CHANGE IS SCARY
The Oscar-winning actress said in an interview published on People magazine's website that she had filed for divorce from Jesse James: "I'm sad and I am scared," she said[2]
ADOPTION AND DIVORCE
Sandra Bullock admitted yesterday that she and her now-estranged husband adopted a baby boy three months before she found out he was cheating on her.[2] The Child is 3½-month-old Louis Bardo Bullock, and she now planned to raise him as a single mother.[1]
The surprise, reported by People magazine, is the existence of an adoption in process. Bullock and James, 41, had planned to adopt Louis, a 3-month-old African-American baby from New Orleans. Bullock now plans to complete the adoption as a single parent, according to People.[3]
THE COUPLE TOOK HOME THE BABY IN JANURARY
Bullock and James took baby Louis Bardo Bullock home in January. [2]
JESSIE MANS UP
James, a custom motorcycle manufacturer and reality TV star, said last month that he took full responsibility for his actions, although he did not comment on allegations of an affair with a California tattoo model.[1]
DIVORCE DOES NOT HAVE TO STOP LOVE
Of her relationship with James's three children, Bullock said: "I don't want to know what life is like without those kids." [2]
JESSIE WILL BE INVITED TO BE PART OF THE BABYS LIFE
Looking ahead to life without James, Bullock said, "I really don't know how our paths will intersect in the future, but the father I have known Jesse to be with all the kids is one that I hope Louis can experience one day, no matter how Jesse and I go on with our lives." [2]
PROPERTY DIVISION
No protective order has been filed and the division of property, according to the petition, will focus on community ownership. Bullock, who holds property in several states and is perhaps Hollywood's most bankable female star, also owns several Austin businesses, including Bess Bistro on Pecan and Walton's Fancy and Staple. [3]
In Michigan In general, property and debts accumulated through the direct or indirect efforts of the parties during the marriage are marital. Neither party is inherently entitled to a greater share of the marital assets or responsible for a greater share of the marital debts. Separate property should be awarded to the owner spouse. These presumptions may be rebutted.
Mandatory Judgment Provisions
Property division must be discussed in the judgment of divorce in a separate paragraph prefaced by an appropriate heading. MCR 3.211(A). The judgment must address these property interests:
Property division. A division of the real and personal property brought to and acquired during the marriage as well as the parties’ debts. MCL 552.19, .23, .101, .103, .401; MCR 3.211(B)(3); Yeo v Yeo, 214 Mich App 598, 543 NW2d 62 (1995).
Insurance. A statement confirming that the divorce judgment terminates each spouse’s interest as a beneficiary in life insurance on the other spouse’s life or providing otherwise. MCL 552.101(2)–(3); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Dower. A statement that the divorce judgment satisfies the wife’s dower claims in the husband’s property. MCL 552.101(1); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Pension, annuity, and retirement benefits. A determination of the rights of both spouses in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits. MCL 552.101(4); MCR 3.211(B)(2).
A consent judgment of divorce provision releasing each party’s rights to the life insurance proceeds of the other party waives a party’s right to a late former spouse’s life insurance proceeds. Sweebe v Sweebe, 474 Mich 151, 712 NW2d 708 (2006); MacInnes v MacInnes, 260 Mich App 280, 677 NW2d 889 (2004).
A divorce or an annulment revokes a will provision naming the former spouse as a beneficiary unless the will specifically provides otherwise. MCL 700.2806–.2809.
JURISDICTION
The petition says she has lived in Texas for at least the previous six months and has been a resident of Travis County for at least 90 days. During much of that time, Bullock remained behind the walls of her Hollywood Hills residence, dodging a battery of paparazzi.[3]
[1]
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0429/1224269287258.html
[2]
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/article424118.ece/Single-parent-Bullock-loving-it
[3]
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_520444.html
FILING FOR DIVORCE
US Oscar- winning actor Sandra Bullock has filed for divorce to end her five-year marriage to Jesse James, she told People magazine in remarks published on its website yesterday.[1]
In Michigan the requirements of a divorce petition include.
Required provisions for divorce judgments.
All divorce judgments.
A determination of each party’s rights in insurance on the life of the other party.
A release of dower rights.
A determination of each party’s rights in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits; contributions to a pension, annuity, or retirement plan; and contingent rights in unvested benefits.
The parties’ rights in property.
A provision granting, reserving, or denying spousal support.
If spousal support is no modifiable, a provision to that effect.
Divorces with minor children—additional required provisions.
A prohibition against moving the children’s residence outside Michigan or, in the case of a joint custody arrangement, a relocation agreement or mandated language prohibiting moving the children’s residence more than 100 miles away.
A requirement that the custodial parent promptly notify the Friend of the Court in writing of any change of the children’s address.
A statement by the court declaring the children’s inherent rights and establishing the rights and duties as to the children’s custody, support, and parenting time.
CHANGE IS SCARY
The Oscar-winning actress said in an interview published on People magazine's website that she had filed for divorce from Jesse James: "I'm sad and I am scared," she said[2]
ADOPTION AND DIVORCE
Sandra Bullock admitted yesterday that she and her now-estranged husband adopted a baby boy three months before she found out he was cheating on her.[2] The Child is 3½-month-old Louis Bardo Bullock, and she now planned to raise him as a single mother.[1]
The surprise, reported by People magazine, is the existence of an adoption in process. Bullock and James, 41, had planned to adopt Louis, a 3-month-old African-American baby from New Orleans. Bullock now plans to complete the adoption as a single parent, according to People.[3]
THE COUPLE TOOK HOME THE BABY IN JANURARY
Bullock and James took baby Louis Bardo Bullock home in January. [2]
JESSIE MANS UP
James, a custom motorcycle manufacturer and reality TV star, said last month that he took full responsibility for his actions, although he did not comment on allegations of an affair with a California tattoo model.[1]
DIVORCE DOES NOT HAVE TO STOP LOVE
Of her relationship with James's three children, Bullock said: "I don't want to know what life is like without those kids." [2]
JESSIE WILL BE INVITED TO BE PART OF THE BABYS LIFE
Looking ahead to life without James, Bullock said, "I really don't know how our paths will intersect in the future, but the father I have known Jesse to be with all the kids is one that I hope Louis can experience one day, no matter how Jesse and I go on with our lives." [2]
PROPERTY DIVISION
No protective order has been filed and the division of property, according to the petition, will focus on community ownership. Bullock, who holds property in several states and is perhaps Hollywood's most bankable female star, also owns several Austin businesses, including Bess Bistro on Pecan and Walton's Fancy and Staple. [3]
In Michigan In general, property and debts accumulated through the direct or indirect efforts of the parties during the marriage are marital. Neither party is inherently entitled to a greater share of the marital assets or responsible for a greater share of the marital debts. Separate property should be awarded to the owner spouse. These presumptions may be rebutted.
Mandatory Judgment Provisions
Property division must be discussed in the judgment of divorce in a separate paragraph prefaced by an appropriate heading. MCR 3.211(A). The judgment must address these property interests:
Property division. A division of the real and personal property brought to and acquired during the marriage as well as the parties’ debts. MCL 552.19, .23, .101, .103, .401; MCR 3.211(B)(3); Yeo v Yeo, 214 Mich App 598, 543 NW2d 62 (1995).
Insurance. A statement confirming that the divorce judgment terminates each spouse’s interest as a beneficiary in life insurance on the other spouse’s life or providing otherwise. MCL 552.101(2)–(3); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Dower. A statement that the divorce judgment satisfies the wife’s dower claims in the husband’s property. MCL 552.101(1); MCR 3.211(B)(1).
Pension, annuity, and retirement benefits. A determination of the rights of both spouses in pension, annuity, or retirement benefits. MCL 552.101(4); MCR 3.211(B)(2).
A consent judgment of divorce provision releasing each party’s rights to the life insurance proceeds of the other party waives a party’s right to a late former spouse’s life insurance proceeds. Sweebe v Sweebe, 474 Mich 151, 712 NW2d 708 (2006); MacInnes v MacInnes, 260 Mich App 280, 677 NW2d 889 (2004).
A divorce or an annulment revokes a will provision naming the former spouse as a beneficiary unless the will specifically provides otherwise. MCL 700.2806–.2809.
JURISDICTION
The petition says she has lived in Texas for at least the previous six months and has been a resident of Travis County for at least 90 days. During much of that time, Bullock remained behind the walls of her Hollywood Hills residence, dodging a battery of paparazzi.[3]
[1]
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0429/1224269287258.html
[2]
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/article424118.ece/Single-parent-Bullock-loving-it
[3]
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_520444.html
FLINT DIVORCE LAW AND TIKI BARBER, he will be thrown for a loss.
HIS AFFAIR COST HIM CONTRACTS. WILL HIS CHILD SUPPORT CALCULATIONS BE BASED ON HIS CONTRACT LEVEL OF INCOME? YES!
Flint Divorce Lawyer comments on how Tiki Barber was thrown for a loss. If this can happen to a celebrity couple it could happen to your friends , family or you. What if Tiki Barber and Ginny Barber lived in Michigan ?
HE HAS A GIRL FRIEND , WIFE HAS UNBORN TWINS!WHY FILE FOR DIVORCE?
TMZ.com reported today that former NFL star Tiki Barber was shocked to learn his wife Ginny had filed for divorce. A source told TMZ that Barber had been under the impression that neither he nor his wife "would file divorce papers until after the babies were born."[3]
ROMANTIC INTEREST OUTSIDE MARRAIGE
Tiki Barber have you no shame or any concern at all for your estranged wife of 11 years, who used to be your best friend and biggest supporter? Obviously not. You were spotted all over New York City, reports the New York Post, with 23 year-old Traci Lynn Johnson, the former college student turned NBC intern who you preferred over your wife, two little boys and the twins on the way.[1]
HE'S GOT THE BALL, ....AND FUMBLED!
Tiki Barber fumbled his good guy rep when he left his pregnant wife for a blonde hottie, but he's still got his big bucks job on the today show.[2]
DOES MALE CELEBRITY NOW MEAN HE IS PHILANDERING?
The Barbers join a long list of celebrity marriages recently marred by philandering husbands. While Tiki has sort of slid under the radar due to the hype surrounding a few higher profile relationships (ahem, Tiger Woods Elign Woods and Jesse James ( Sandra Bullock), his circumstance is one of the more offensive given that he was cheating on his wife of 11 years while she was pregnant with twins! [3]
DIVORCE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Not only that, you’ve been lowballing Ginny in out-of-court negotiations over financial support, a family friend told the NYPost. ” Tiki refused to give her anything close to what she needs,” the friend told the paper. Guess it’s more important to buy expensive gifts, clothing and take her out to dinner, than take care of sons AJ, 7, Chasen, 6 and your new babies, Tiki. No wonder our Hollywoodlife.com readers voted you THE WORST Dad of 2010 by a wide margin with 55 per cent of the vote. You easily beat out Jon Gosselin and Tiger Woods.[1]
WHY WOULD HE BE SUPRIZED? LOSS OF CONTROL?
Why Barber is surprised by this news is very unclear. His wife, Ginny, is currently 8 months pregnant with twins, and they have been separated for weeks since news of Barber's infidelity (with a much younger woman) surfaced.[3]
ADULTRY BASIS OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN
The divorce papers were filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court Apr. 26 citing “adultery.” Tiki surprised his wife with news about his affair when he told her he was moving out last fall and into a midtown lovenest. [1]
SACKED
"Tiki is a contributor to the 'Today' show," an NBC news spokeswoman told The Daily News on Tuesday, refuting reports that Barber has been sacked by 30 Rock.
SUPRIZED BY GIRL FRIEND
Until, he dropped that bomb on pregnant Ginny, the former football star, who had spoken out about his own father’s philandering, had never dropped a hint to Ginny, that he was unhappy with their marriage, a source told Hollywoodlife.com.[1]
LOST HIS BIGGEST GIG
Barber, 35, also recently lost his gig on NBC's weekly Sunday night football telecast. The network opted not to renew Barber's contract after last season.
TO GIG OR TO SHACK
Barber's ouster from that show appeared to coincide with reports that he'd shacked up with 23-year-old former NBC intern Traci Lynn Johnson.[2]
DOMESTIC ISSUES COST HUSBAND CONRACTS
It’s not surprising that NBC has suspended Tiki from his two jobs as a Sports and Today show correspondent after news about his scandalous behavior broke. Reports are surfacing that the Today show has fired Tiki but NBC and Tiki both will not comment.[1]
WHAT INCOME WILL TIKIS CHILD SUPPORT BE BASED UPON.
A recent Michigan Court of Appeals case may give some guidance.
Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished 4-20-2010),Case Name: T v. T Genesee County 04-252661-DM
e-Journal Number: 45575,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Jansen, Cavanagh, and K.F. Kelly
This case looked at Child support; Whether the trial court properly imputed income to plaintiff for the purpose of calculating child support; Rohloff v. Rohloff; Olson v. Olson; 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) Manual 2.01
WILL THE COURT DECIDE THAT TIKI HAS AN UNEXERCISED ABILITY TO EARN?
The Michigan Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the referee's recommendation and imputing a $350,000 annual income to plaintiff for purposes of calculating child support where the evidence clearly showed he voluntarily reduced his income when he left the investment banking field and he had an unexercised ability to earn far more than he was presently earning. [SEE 04-252661-DM]
THE JUDGE HAS GREAT DISCRETION WITH YOUR LIFE IN DIVORCE
As to child support, both case law and the MCSF clearly grant the trial court discretion to impute additional, unearned income to a parent. The evidence showed plaintiff earned well over $600,000 in his last year as an investment banker, he had other substantial assets and investments, he continued to receive distributions from his former company (in which he owned equity), and a VE testified he had a current potential to earn at least $350,000 a year based on his experience and training in investment banking. [See Toal]
HE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. JUST DO IT.
Tiki has the ability to earn more and his child support may be based upon that higher amount.
IN THE MICHIGAN CASE DAD SAID THE GENESEE COUNTY COURT GOT IT WRONG. THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IT WAS DONE RIGHT. DAD PAYS MORE CHILD SUPPORT.
In Docket No. 291267, plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred by ordering him to pay
child support based on an imputed annual income of $350,000, rather than his true annual
income of $40,000.
DAD QUIT THE INVESTMENT JOB IN 2002
Specifically, plaintiff asserts that although he was formerly an investment banker, earning $350,000 or more per year, he had since given up his investment-banking career and become a school teacher, with a much more meager annual salary. He contends that the referee and circuit court erred (1) by imputing to him his former income as an investment banker rather than his present income as a teacher and coach, (2) by deviating from the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (MCSF), and (3) by failing to articulate a sufficient reason for deviating from the MCSF. He points out that he had already switched from his former investment-banking career to his new teaching career at the time of the court’s child support determination, and asserts that the facts of this case did not support the court’s imputation of a $350,000 annual salary. Again, we disagree. [see 04-252661-DM]
THE JUDGE ADOPTED A REFEREE DECISION AND THAT IS OKAY
We cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion by adopting the referee’s
recommendation that plaintiff should pay monthly child support based on an imputed annual income of $350,000. Both Michigan’s caselaw and the MCSF clearly grant the circuit court discretion to impute additional, unearned income to a parent. Stallworth, 275 Mich App at 285; 2008 MCSF 2.01(G). It is well settled that “when a party voluntarily reduces or eliminates income, and the . . . court concludes that the party has the ability to earn an income and pay child support, the court does not err in entering a support order based upon the unexercised ability to earn.” Olson v Olson, 189 Mich App 620, 622; 473 NW2d 772 (1991); see also Rohloff, 161 Mich App at 776. In particular, this Court has held that a circuit court may properly consider a party’s “income potential” when determining child support, id. at 770, and that a court does not abuse its discretion “by entering a child support order based upon the income [a party] received
before voluntarily leaving [his or her] employment,” id. at 776. [See 04-252661-DM]
HE MADE A LOT OF MONEY ONCE AND HE CAN DO IT AGAIN
In the case at bar, the evidence established that plaintiff had earned well over $600,000 in
his final year as an investment banker, that he had other substantial assets and investments, and that he continued to receive distributions from Chilmark, his former company in which he owned equity. Moreover, a vocational expert testified that plaintiff had a current potential to earn at least $350,000 per year, based on his training and experience in the field of investment banking. This Court must give due regard to the special opportunity of the referee and circuit court to weigh the testimony and judge the credibility of the witnesses. See In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
In short, the record in this matter adequately supported the referee’s
finding that plaintiff had other assets and investments in addition to his teaching salary, that he continued to receive distributions from his former company, and that he had the present capacity to earn $350,000 per year. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the referee’s recommendations on this issue and imputing to plaintiff an annual income of $350,000 for the purpose of calculating child support. [see 04-252661-DM]
THE FAMILY PLANNED TO MOVE HE QUIT A JOB THEY MOVED NOW HE PAYS ON WHAT HE IS NOT EARNING
Here, the evidence plainly established that plaintiff voluntarily reduced his income when
he relocated to Michigan and left the investment-banking industry. Moreover, credible
testimony showed that plaintiff had an unexercised ability to earn far more than he was presently earning as a teacher and coach. We simply cannot conclude that the circuit court deviated from the MCSF in this case. Quite the opposite, it appears to us that the court’s decision to impute income to plaintiff fully conformed to the MCSF’s mandates and guidelines, and we must therefore reject plaintiff’s claim to the contrary.2 See 2008 MCSF 2.01(G).[see 04-252661-DM]
PREGNANT WIFE LEFT HOME
Ginny is now home at her Upper East Side apartment and according to sources close to her, she’s very upset – no surprise.[1]
While Barber has been seen squiring Johnson around town and even took her to the Vancover Olympics, his soon-to-be ex-wife is pregnant with twins - and practically trapped in the marital bed.
"There have not been any complications, but her doctor said it's safer for her to stay in her home and stay in her bed," said a source close to the matter. "She's a small woman and she's very pregnant. Aside from visits to her doctor, she's confined to her apartment."[2]
“It’s been an emotional time for her,” says the source. “She is, of course, worried about the health of her unborn twins. It’s a lot to deal with and she is still being closely monitored by her doctors.”[1]
NO SYMPATHY FOR HUSBAND
We wish you well Ginny. Hopefully your louse of an ex will PAY bigtime![1]
See
[1]
http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/04/27/tiki-barber-wife-divorce-papers-traci-intern-mistress/
[2]
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/04/27/2010-04-27_exgiant_tiki_barber_keeps_today_show_job_after_leaving_wife_for_23yearold_former.html
[3]
http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978201800
Flint Divorce Lawyer comments on how Tiki Barber was thrown for a loss. If this can happen to a celebrity couple it could happen to your friends , family or you. What if Tiki Barber and Ginny Barber lived in Michigan ?
HE HAS A GIRL FRIEND , WIFE HAS UNBORN TWINS!WHY FILE FOR DIVORCE?
TMZ.com reported today that former NFL star Tiki Barber was shocked to learn his wife Ginny had filed for divorce. A source told TMZ that Barber had been under the impression that neither he nor his wife "would file divorce papers until after the babies were born."[3]
ROMANTIC INTEREST OUTSIDE MARRAIGE
Tiki Barber have you no shame or any concern at all for your estranged wife of 11 years, who used to be your best friend and biggest supporter? Obviously not. You were spotted all over New York City, reports the New York Post, with 23 year-old Traci Lynn Johnson, the former college student turned NBC intern who you preferred over your wife, two little boys and the twins on the way.[1]
HE'S GOT THE BALL, ....AND FUMBLED!
Tiki Barber fumbled his good guy rep when he left his pregnant wife for a blonde hottie, but he's still got his big bucks job on the today show.[2]
DOES MALE CELEBRITY NOW MEAN HE IS PHILANDERING?
The Barbers join a long list of celebrity marriages recently marred by philandering husbands. While Tiki has sort of slid under the radar due to the hype surrounding a few higher profile relationships (ahem, Tiger Woods Elign Woods and Jesse James ( Sandra Bullock), his circumstance is one of the more offensive given that he was cheating on his wife of 11 years while she was pregnant with twins! [3]
DIVORCE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
Not only that, you’ve been lowballing Ginny in out-of-court negotiations over financial support, a family friend told the NYPost. ” Tiki refused to give her anything close to what she needs,” the friend told the paper. Guess it’s more important to buy expensive gifts, clothing and take her out to dinner, than take care of sons AJ, 7, Chasen, 6 and your new babies, Tiki. No wonder our Hollywoodlife.com readers voted you THE WORST Dad of 2010 by a wide margin with 55 per cent of the vote. You easily beat out Jon Gosselin and Tiger Woods.[1]
WHY WOULD HE BE SUPRIZED? LOSS OF CONTROL?
Why Barber is surprised by this news is very unclear. His wife, Ginny, is currently 8 months pregnant with twins, and they have been separated for weeks since news of Barber's infidelity (with a much younger woman) surfaced.[3]
ADULTRY BASIS OF MARITAL BREAKDOWN
The divorce papers were filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court Apr. 26 citing “adultery.” Tiki surprised his wife with news about his affair when he told her he was moving out last fall and into a midtown lovenest. [1]
SACKED
"Tiki is a contributor to the 'Today' show," an NBC news spokeswoman told The Daily News on Tuesday, refuting reports that Barber has been sacked by 30 Rock.
SUPRIZED BY GIRL FRIEND
Until, he dropped that bomb on pregnant Ginny, the former football star, who had spoken out about his own father’s philandering, had never dropped a hint to Ginny, that he was unhappy with their marriage, a source told Hollywoodlife.com.[1]
LOST HIS BIGGEST GIG
Barber, 35, also recently lost his gig on NBC's weekly Sunday night football telecast. The network opted not to renew Barber's contract after last season.
TO GIG OR TO SHACK
Barber's ouster from that show appeared to coincide with reports that he'd shacked up with 23-year-old former NBC intern Traci Lynn Johnson.[2]
DOMESTIC ISSUES COST HUSBAND CONRACTS
It’s not surprising that NBC has suspended Tiki from his two jobs as a Sports and Today show correspondent after news about his scandalous behavior broke. Reports are surfacing that the Today show has fired Tiki but NBC and Tiki both will not comment.[1]
WHAT INCOME WILL TIKIS CHILD SUPPORT BE BASED UPON.
A recent Michigan Court of Appeals case may give some guidance.
Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished 4-20-2010),Case Name: T v. T Genesee County 04-252661-DM
e-Journal Number: 45575,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Jansen, Cavanagh, and K.F. Kelly
This case looked at Child support; Whether the trial court properly imputed income to plaintiff for the purpose of calculating child support; Rohloff v. Rohloff; Olson v. Olson; 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) Manual 2.01
WILL THE COURT DECIDE THAT TIKI HAS AN UNEXERCISED ABILITY TO EARN?
The Michigan Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the referee's recommendation and imputing a $350,000 annual income to plaintiff for purposes of calculating child support where the evidence clearly showed he voluntarily reduced his income when he left the investment banking field and he had an unexercised ability to earn far more than he was presently earning. [SEE 04-252661-DM]
THE JUDGE HAS GREAT DISCRETION WITH YOUR LIFE IN DIVORCE
As to child support, both case law and the MCSF clearly grant the trial court discretion to impute additional, unearned income to a parent. The evidence showed plaintiff earned well over $600,000 in his last year as an investment banker, he had other substantial assets and investments, he continued to receive distributions from his former company (in which he owned equity), and a VE testified he had a current potential to earn at least $350,000 a year based on his experience and training in investment banking. [See Toal]
HE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY. JUST DO IT.
Tiki has the ability to earn more and his child support may be based upon that higher amount.
IN THE MICHIGAN CASE DAD SAID THE GENESEE COUNTY COURT GOT IT WRONG. THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IT WAS DONE RIGHT. DAD PAYS MORE CHILD SUPPORT.
In Docket No. 291267, plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred by ordering him to pay
child support based on an imputed annual income of $350,000, rather than his true annual
income of $40,000.
DAD QUIT THE INVESTMENT JOB IN 2002
Specifically, plaintiff asserts that although he was formerly an investment banker, earning $350,000 or more per year, he had since given up his investment-banking career and become a school teacher, with a much more meager annual salary. He contends that the referee and circuit court erred (1) by imputing to him his former income as an investment banker rather than his present income as a teacher and coach, (2) by deviating from the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (MCSF), and (3) by failing to articulate a sufficient reason for deviating from the MCSF. He points out that he had already switched from his former investment-banking career to his new teaching career at the time of the court’s child support determination, and asserts that the facts of this case did not support the court’s imputation of a $350,000 annual salary. Again, we disagree. [see 04-252661-DM]
THE JUDGE ADOPTED A REFEREE DECISION AND THAT IS OKAY
We cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion by adopting the referee’s
recommendation that plaintiff should pay monthly child support based on an imputed annual income of $350,000. Both Michigan’s caselaw and the MCSF clearly grant the circuit court discretion to impute additional, unearned income to a parent. Stallworth, 275 Mich App at 285; 2008 MCSF 2.01(G). It is well settled that “when a party voluntarily reduces or eliminates income, and the . . . court concludes that the party has the ability to earn an income and pay child support, the court does not err in entering a support order based upon the unexercised ability to earn.” Olson v Olson, 189 Mich App 620, 622; 473 NW2d 772 (1991); see also Rohloff, 161 Mich App at 776. In particular, this Court has held that a circuit court may properly consider a party’s “income potential” when determining child support, id. at 770, and that a court does not abuse its discretion “by entering a child support order based upon the income [a party] received
before voluntarily leaving [his or her] employment,” id. at 776. [See 04-252661-DM]
HE MADE A LOT OF MONEY ONCE AND HE CAN DO IT AGAIN
In the case at bar, the evidence established that plaintiff had earned well over $600,000 in
his final year as an investment banker, that he had other substantial assets and investments, and that he continued to receive distributions from Chilmark, his former company in which he owned equity. Moreover, a vocational expert testified that plaintiff had a current potential to earn at least $350,000 per year, based on his training and experience in the field of investment banking. This Court must give due regard to the special opportunity of the referee and circuit court to weigh the testimony and judge the credibility of the witnesses. See In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
In short, the record in this matter adequately supported the referee’s
finding that plaintiff had other assets and investments in addition to his teaching salary, that he continued to receive distributions from his former company, and that he had the present capacity to earn $350,000 per year. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the referee’s recommendations on this issue and imputing to plaintiff an annual income of $350,000 for the purpose of calculating child support. [see 04-252661-DM]
THE FAMILY PLANNED TO MOVE HE QUIT A JOB THEY MOVED NOW HE PAYS ON WHAT HE IS NOT EARNING
Here, the evidence plainly established that plaintiff voluntarily reduced his income when
he relocated to Michigan and left the investment-banking industry. Moreover, credible
testimony showed that plaintiff had an unexercised ability to earn far more than he was presently earning as a teacher and coach. We simply cannot conclude that the circuit court deviated from the MCSF in this case. Quite the opposite, it appears to us that the court’s decision to impute income to plaintiff fully conformed to the MCSF’s mandates and guidelines, and we must therefore reject plaintiff’s claim to the contrary.2 See 2008 MCSF 2.01(G).[see 04-252661-DM]
PREGNANT WIFE LEFT HOME
Ginny is now home at her Upper East Side apartment and according to sources close to her, she’s very upset – no surprise.[1]
While Barber has been seen squiring Johnson around town and even took her to the Vancover Olympics, his soon-to-be ex-wife is pregnant with twins - and practically trapped in the marital bed.
"There have not been any complications, but her doctor said it's safer for her to stay in her home and stay in her bed," said a source close to the matter. "She's a small woman and she's very pregnant. Aside from visits to her doctor, she's confined to her apartment."[2]
“It’s been an emotional time for her,” says the source. “She is, of course, worried about the health of her unborn twins. It’s a lot to deal with and she is still being closely monitored by her doctors.”[1]
NO SYMPATHY FOR HUSBAND
We wish you well Ginny. Hopefully your louse of an ex will PAY bigtime![1]
See
[1]
http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/04/27/tiki-barber-wife-divorce-papers-traci-intern-mistress/
[2]
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/04/27/2010-04-27_exgiant_tiki_barber_keeps_today_show_job_after_leaving_wife_for_23yearold_former.html
[3]
http://celebs.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978201800
Monday, April 26, 2010
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- NO EXCUSE
Nobody has a right to hit you. But you have to act. A PPO is one way.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
