1st Eve & ADAM then Flint Divorce by Terry Bankert 810-235-1970

Adam and Eve  were followed  by families where matrimony turned to acrimoney  For an Adam Divorce can be a difficult process, the same is do for Eve.  If you have made that tough decision contact Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Banket. Even in the best of circumstances, tempers may run high, and every decision can seem to be more stressful than the last. It is only human to find yourself reacting emotionally at certain stages of a divorce, but it is important to remember that your actions throughout the process can affect your familial, emotional, and financial situation for years to come. Flint Divorce Lawyer says Following are some "do's and don'ts" for the divorce process.


THE DO's

DO be reasonable and cooperate as much as possible with your soon-to-be-ex. Reasonable compromise yields quicker and easier results in divorce cases.

DO support your children through this process. It's even tougher on them than on you. Don't make them pick sides.

DO let your spouse know when and where you will spend time with your kids while you work out permanent custody arrangements.

DO fully disclose all your assets and property. A court can throw out a divorce decree based on financial deception, putting you back in court years after you thought everything was final.

DO ask your attorney if anything doesn't make sense. Your attorney works for you, and should help you understand every part of the divorce process.

THE DON'Ts

DON'T make big plans to take a job in another state or move out of the country until your divorce is final. Your new life could interfere with getting your divorce finalized.

DON'T violate any temporary custody or visitation arrangements. It could make it tougher for you to get the custody or visitation rights you prefer.

DON'T "give away" property to friends or relatives and arrange to get it back later. Hiding property can mean your spouse can take you back to court to settle those assets.

DON'T go it alone. Divorce is complicated, and an attorney can make sure that your interests are protected.

DON’T make wedding plans with your new significant other until your divorce is finalized.

A FEW OF THE ISSUES.

180 day residency in Michigan required of one of the parties.

Friend of the Court becomes involved if there are children or spousal support is requested.

Allegations In a divorce proceeding the only allegation of the grounds for divorce the statute permits is the no-fault grounds, i.e. " there ha been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likely hood that the marriage can be preserved.

Child Custody proceedings are often part of a divorce action but they may be initiated independent of a divorce proceedings. A married parent may independently commence an action for child support as long as there is no divorce or separate maintenance proceedings.

OTHER PARTIES Generally it is beyond the jurisdiction of the divorce court to adjudicate third- party rights regarding property. An example is a car loan with both names on it. One may be ordered to pay it in the divorce but both can be sued by the lien holder.

Filing and Serving the Divorce/Dissolution Petition

The divorce complaint is a legal document that is filed in court by a spouse who seeks a divorce. This complaint informs the court of the filing spouse's (called the "petitioner") desire to end the marriage, and its filing with the court signifies the initiation of the divorce process. Once the divorce/dissolution petition has been "served" on the petitioner's spouse, it also notifies him or her that the divorce process has begun.

Contents of the Divorce/Dissolution Petition: Information and Requests

A complaint typically contains the following information:

Identification of the spouses by name and address;

Date and place of marriage;

Identification of children of the marriage;

Acknowledgment that the petitioner and/or his or her spouse have lived in the state or county for a certain amount of time prior to filing the petition;

Grounds for divorce;

Declaration or request as to how the petitioner would like to settle finances, property division, child custody, visitation, and other issues related to divorce.

A divorce complaint should be as neutral a document as possible. Inflammatory language can

open up wounds that will never heal.



Do you need help now? Call 810 235-1970 !



By Attorney Terry Ray Bankert 810 235-1970

http://attorneybankert.com/


Divorce, Custody, Child Support, Alimony, Child Neglect, Flint Michigan USA Lawyer. http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/

Courts must conduct a hearing before your childs custody is changed!

PARENTS YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A BEST INTEREST HEARING EVERY TIME A COURT CHANGES CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILD.




Flint Divorce lawyer Terry R. Bankert discusses several domestic issues :

1-The trial court's dispositional order on remand providing that the minor child's "primary residence" would be with respondent-Reid (his father) subject to parenting time with respondent-Johnson (the mother) in accordance with a mediation agreement, any future issues of custody or parenting time would be decided in the domestic section of the family court, and terminating the trial court's jurisdiction over the child in the child protective proceeding;

2- Flint Divorce Attorney Terry R. Bankert also discusses Whether the trial court erred by failing to enter its order in the related paternity case as well as the child protective proceeding; In re AP;

3.Mediation in domestic relations cases;

4. MISC:MCR 3.216(H); Fran v. Fran; Effect of the parents' use of alternative dispute resolution on the trial court's authority and obligations under the Child Custody Act (CCA); Harvey v. Harvey; MCL 722.26a(1); Whether the case should be remanded to a different judge; Balata v. Balata



Based upon S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P E A L S,UNPUBLISHED

January 20, 2011,In the Matter of B J, Minor. No. 296273,Wayne Circuit Court

Family Divisional No. 06-461948.e-Journal Number: 47937 CAPS and [tab] are from poster Terry R. Bankert Flint Family Law Attorney.



HIGH COURT TAKES PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF THE CHILD FROM FATHER



The MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS again vacated the WAYNE FAMILY trial court's dispositional order, which provided that the minor child's "primary residence" would be with respondent-Reid (his father), concluding that the order effectively awarded Reid custody but the trial court again did not consider the statutory best interest factors before changing custody.

FATHERS PHYSICAL CUSTODY HAD BEEN REVERESED

In a prior appeal (In re AP), the court vacated the trial court's May 2008 order entered in a child protective case, pursuant to which the trial court terminated its jurisdiction over the child and awarded Reid physical custody.

LOCAL COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A BEST INTEREST HEARING

The court held in AP that the trial court erred because it failed to ensure that its order was entered in a related paternity case between Reid and respondent-Johnson (pursuant to which Johnson was awarded physical custody) and because the trial court effectively decided the custody issue without considering the CCA's best interest factors.

ON SECOND TRY LOCAL COURT GIVES Dad primary residence

On remand, the trial court entered the December 2009 order at issue here. As an initial matter, the court agreed with Johnson that the trial court again erred by failing to enter its order in the related paternity case as well as the child protective proceeding. While the trial court stated that future issues as to custody and parenting time were to be submitted to the domestic section of the family court that decided the paternity case, since the December 2009 order effectively decided custody and parenting time issues, it was necessary that this order also be captioned with the appropriate paternity case name and number.

ONCE AGAIN THER COURT DID NOT CONDUCT A BEST INTEREST HEARING

Further, the court held that the December 2009 order was not entered in accordance with the court's decision in AP because the trial court again effectively decided custody issues without complying with the CCA's requirements and entry of the order resulted in a conflict with the original custody order entered in the paternity case. In accordance with the court's decision in AP, the trial court could not properly enter a custody award to Reid that would survive the termination of its jurisdiction unless its decision was made in compliance with the CCA.

THE COURT USED A MEDIATION REPORT THAT DID NOT RECOMMEND ON CUSTODY ISSUE

The court also noted that while the December 2009 order was allegedly based on a mediation agreement, that agreement only addressed parenting time, not custody.

PRIMARY RESIDENCE EFFECTIVELY GAVE DAD CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING

The order establishing Reid's home as the child's "primary residence" subject to a parenting time schedule for Johnson led to a custody arrangement where Reid was effectively awarded physical custody of the child, contrary to the custody order in the original paternity case, but without the prior custody order ever being modified and without entry of an order formally awarding Reid custody. Vacated [ENDED ORDER] and remanded [SENT BACK TO COURT TO GET IT RIGHT].

===

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,UNPUBLISHED

January 20, 2011,In the Matter of B J, Minor. No. 296273,Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division,LC No. 06-461948.

NOTES





JUDGES MUST COMPLY WITH THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT CCA

This Court held that the juvenile court erred because it failed to

ensure that its order was entered in a related paternity action between respondents Johnson and

Reid, pursuant to which Johnson had been awarded physical custody of the child, and because

the juvenile court also effectively decided the issue of custody without considering the statutory

best interest factors in the Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.23.



MEDIATION RULES

Mediation in domestic relations actions is governed by MCR 3.216. MCR 3.216(H) provides, in pertinent

part:

(5) The mediator shall discuss with the parties and counsel, if any, the

facts and issues involved. The mediation will continue until a settlement is

reached, the mediator determines that a settlement is not likely to be reached, the

end of the first mediation session, or until a time agreed to by the parties.

(6) Within 7 days of the completion of mediation, the mediator shall so

advise the court, stating only the date of completion of the process, who

participated in the mediation, whether settlement was reached, and whether

further ADR proceedings are contemplated. If an evaluation will be made under

subrule (I), the mediator may delay reporting to the court until completion of the

evaluation process.

(7) If a settlement is reached as a result of the mediation, to be binding,

the terms of that settlement must be reduced to a signed writing by the parties or

acknowledged by the parties on an audio or video recording. After a settlement

has been reached, the parties shall take steps necessary to enter judgment as in the

case of other settlements.

DOMESTIC MEDIATION IS DIFFERENT

Domestic relations mediation under MCR 3.216 differs from binding mediation in other civil

actions because mediation under MCR 3.216 is not binding, but is subject to acceptance or

rejection by the parties. Frain v Frain, 213 Mich App 509, 511; 540 NW2d 741 (1995).

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTIUON MUST STILL FOLLOW THE LAW

It is well established that parents’ utilization of alternative dispute resolution does not

deprive the court of its authority and obligations under the Child Custody Act. In Harvey v

Harvey, 470 Mich 186; 680 NW2d 835 (2004), our Supreme Court held that parties cannot

stipulate to restrict a trial court’s authority to decide a custody issue.

THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT IS MENT TO GUIDE DECISION MAKING IIN CUSTODY DISPUTES.

The Court Stated:The Child Custody Act is a comprehensive statutory scheme for resolving

custody disputes. Van v Zahorik, 460 Mich 320, 327; 597 NW2d 15 (1999).

With it, the Legislature sought to “promote the best interests and welfare of

children.” Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 877; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).



CCA APPLIES IN ALL CUSTODY DECISIONS

The act applies to all custody disputes and vests the circuit court with continuing

jurisdiction. MCL 722.26.

CHILD BEST INTEREST CONTROL

The act makes clear that the best interests of the child control the

resolution of a custody dispute between parents, as gauged by the factors set forth

at MCL 722.23. MCL 722.25(1). It places an affirmative obligation on the

circuit court to “declare the child’s inherent rights and establish the rights and

duties as to the child’s custody, support, and parenting time in accordance with

this act” whenever the court is required to adjudicate an action “involving dispute

of a minor child’s custody.” MCL 722.24(1); Van, supra at 328.



THE COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT A BEST INTEREST HEARING

Taken together these statutory provisions impose on the trial court the duty to ensure that the

resolution of any custody dispute is in the best interests of the child. [Harvey, 470

Mich at 191-192.]



THE COURT WANTS PARENTS TO REACH AGREEMENT BUT THE COURT HAS A DUTY.

We recognize that parents sometimes reach agreements regarding custody

and visitation matters either informally through direct negotiations or through

mediation procedures made available by dispute resolution organizations. Our

decision does not restrict the ability of parties to address disputes through

alternative dispute resolution processes. We hold only that the statutory “best

interests” factors control whenever a court enters an order affecting child custody.

An initial agreement between the parties cannot relieve the court of its statutory

responsibility to ensure that its adjudication of custody disputes is in a child's best

interests.

MEDIATION AGREEMENTS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Likewise, parties must understand that a child custody determination

resulting from alternative dispute resolution processes is not enforceable absent a

court order. [Id. at 187-188 n 2.]

JUDGES REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE REFEREE CONDUCT A HEARING

See also Rivette v Rose-Molina, 278 Mich App 327, 330-333; 750 NW2d 603 (2008) (holding

that a Friend of the Court referee must consider the best interest factors in making a custody

recommendation, and the trial court must satisfy itself that the best interest factors were

considered or make its own findings regarding the factors).



YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK FOR JOINT CUSTODY

Further, in accordance with MCL 722.26a(1), the court must consider an award of joint custody if requested by either parent.1



Post here by

Terry R. Bankert

Flint Family Law Attorney

http://www.attorneybankert.com/