Written on
December 11, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times unwraps the gift within the act of giving.
Tara Parker-Pope writes (excerpt):
. . . [G]iving gifts is a surprisingly complex and important part of human interaction, helping to define relationships and strengthen bonds with family and friends. Indeed, psychologists say it is often the giver, rather than the recipient, who reaps the biggest psychological gains from a gift. . . .
****
But the biggest effect of gift giving may be on ourselves. Giving to others reinforces our feelings for them and makes us feel effective and caring, Dr. Langer said.
Posted in Relationships 
No Comments »
Written on
December 6, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing Surman v Surman (Case No. 276615, 12/4/2007), which addresses children as witnesses (excerpt):
While courts should seek to avoid, trial court may call child to testify in court about his or her allegations of abuse during child custody proceeding divorcing parents from being pushed to the center of their parents’ dispute by avoiding the taking of the child’s parental preference testimony in court. Based on this principle of protecting the child from undue stress, Joseph Surman argues that Nicholas should not have been called to testify in court regarding his allegations of abuse.
We disagree. First, Molloy II firmly established that the subject matter of the in camera
interview be strictly limited to determining the child’s preference. Second, neither case law nor
court rule precludes a trial court from taking testimony in court regarding issues other than the
child’s preference. Indeed, case law, including Burghdorff, Molloy II, and specifically,
Breneman, makes clear that a trial court must take testimony in open court on issues of abuse or mistreatment because to allow courts to discuss such matters during the in camera interview would constitute a due process violation. Stated differently, although courts should seek to avoid subjecting children to the distress and trauma resulting from testifying in court subject to cross examination, concerns over the child’s welfare are outweighed when balanced against the parent’s due process rights.
When dealing with issues such as abuse and mistreatment, the child will often be the only
witness, other than the allegedly abusive parent, with firsthand knowledge of the incident.33
Thus, testimony concerning a child’s allegations of abuse is clearly relevant to the trial court’s
custody determination.34 And, unlike when assessing testimony regarding the child’s personal preference on which parent the child would rather reside, when assessing testimony of abuse the trial court is called upon to make credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, and, most importantly, resolve factual conflicts, all of which must be supported by the great weight of the evidence and subject to this Court’s review.35 Accordingly, when necessary to facilitate a trial
court’s assessment of the child’s best interests, a trial court may call a child to testify in court
concerning his or her allegations of abuse during a child custody proceeding.
Joseph Surman also argues that the trial court should not have interviewed Nicholas in
court because he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, and was taking medication and receiving psychological counseling. We disagree.
In Breneman, this Court, citing MRE 601,36 held that, “as a general rule an 11-year-old
child is competent to testify . . . unless the court finds after questioning a person that he does not have sufficient physical or mental capacity or sense of obligation to testify truthfully and
understandably[.]”37 Here, the trial court “specifically questioned the child to determine his
competency and ability to tell the truth before it permitted him to testify.”38 Therefore, the trial
court complied with MRE 601 by assessing Nicholas’s competency on the record. Indeed, the trial court took additional safeguards to make sure the process was not coercive or threatening by soliciting the active participation of James Van Treese, PhD.
We conclude, in keeping with Breneman and Molloy II, that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in permitting Nicholas to testify in court regarding his allegations of abuse against Joseph Surman.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
November 28, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The New York Times rings up “two hours of inexplicable madness” with a report on the Niagara Falls judge who heard a cellphone ring in his courtroom. When no one fessed up, he played the “Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go” card.
Danny Hakim writes (excerpt):
On the morning of March 11, 2005, the judge, Robert M. Restaino, was presiding over a slate of domestic-violence cases when he heard a phone ring. According to the commission’s report, he told the roughly 70 people in the courtroom that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over.
****
“This troubles me more than any of you people can understand,” Judge Restaino said, adding: “This person, whoever he or she may be, doesn’t have a whole lot of concern. Let’s see how much concern they have when they are sitting in the back there with all the rest of you. Ultimately, when you go back there to be booked, you’ve got to surrender what you got on you. One way or another, we’re going to get our hands on something.”
Posted in Something Different No Comments »
Written on
November 26, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Associated Press/Grand Rapids Press shows the abuse risk in cohabitation, including the abusive-boyfriend syndrome and the risk to children in nontraditional family structures.
David Crary writes (excerpt):
Among the findings:
*Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents, according to a study of Missouri abuse reports published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2005.
*Children living in stepfamilies or with single parents are at higher risk of physical or sexual assault than children living with two biological or adoptive parents, according to several studies co-authored by David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center.
*Girls whose parents divorce are at significantly higher risk of sexual assault, whether they live with their mother or their father, according to research by Robin Wilson, a family law professor at Washington and Lee University.
Posted in Families/Children 1 Comment »
Written on
November 16, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
USA Today showed the power of love through the eyes of retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and her husband, who suffers from Alzheimer’s.
Joan Biskupic writes (excerpt):
“Mom was thrilled that Dad was relaxed and happy and comfortable living here and wasn’t complaining,” Scott [O’Connor] . . . .
****
Scott compared his father to “a teenager in love” and said, “For Mom to visit when he’s happy … visiting with his girlfriend, sitting on the porch swing holding hands,” was a relief after a painful period.
Posted in Relationships 17 Comments »
Written on
November 6, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
Divorce Online announced their support for collaborative divorce (excerpt):
. . . [F]amily law is different. Who is the winner and who the loser in an argument about what should happen to the family home, or in a dispute about the living arrangements for children? Many judges who regularly hear family cases would generally agree with – and express – the sentiment that if a family conflict reaches the courts, a fair outcome will result only in both parties feeling like losers.
****
So what are the alternatives to court? Negotiation and mediation have been around for a little while. But these alternatives, however useful and effective in their own right, share one disadvantage that can make them unsuitable for some people: the option of going to court is always there in the background, for one party or the other to think, ‘This is as far as I am willing to compromise, because I would do at least as well as this if I went to court.’ And if both parties think this, then the negotiations will hit an impasse.
This is where a new approach, Collaborative Family Law, comes into its own. The unique feature of the collaborative process is a formal ‘participation agreement’, which prevents the parties and the lawyers from relying on the fall-back option of the court if agreement is not reached. In effect, if the collaborative process fails, then the parties have to instruct new lawyers and start from scratch if they want to go to court. This ‘stick’ motivates everybody involved – including the lawyers – to do everything reasonable to reach agreement. There is also the ‘carrot’ of the parties having far more control over the outcome of their dispute than if they were to ask a judge to make a decision for them.
Posted in Collaborative Divorce 2 Comments »
Written on
November 2, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
James W. McElhaney highlights how to make a losing argument. He discusses seven methods:
Argue with the judge.
Bury your argument in clutter.
Misstate the facts.
Base your argument on obscure technicalities.
Read your argument.
Push a good point too far.
Give in to sudden inspiration.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
November 1, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The News Journal summarizes wooing to win [”The Art of Woo: Using Strategic Persuasion to Sell Your Ideas” by Wharton professor G. Richard Shell and management consultant Mario Moussa] (excerpt):
The word “woo,” the authors note, has many meanings, but all of them relate to focusing on the person you are trying to persuade more than on your own needs and fears. . . .
“The Art of Woo” presents a simple, four-step approach to the idea-selling process. First, persuaders need to polish their ideas and survey the social networks that will lead them to decision makers. . . .
The second stage of the Woo process is confronting what Shell and Moussa call “the five barriers” — the five most common obstacles that can sink ideas before they get started. These include unreceptive beliefs, conflicting interests, negative relationships, a lack of credibility and failing to adjust one’s communication mode to suit a particular audience or situation. . . .
The third stage is to pitch your idea in a compelling way [for example, short, punchy presentations showing exactly what problem your idea addresses, how your idea will solve it and why your idea is better than both the status quo and available alternatives]. . . .
The final stage of Woo is to secure both individual and organizational commitments. . . . “Research shows that in most organizations, a minimum of eight people will need to sign off on even simple ideas.”
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
October 31, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
ClickDocs announces the launch of a new legal forum encouraging use of the collaborative process for complex ‘big money’ divorces (excerpt):
The founders of the Central London Collaborative Forum believe that collaborative law can help avoid the cost and acrimony evidenced in many high profile divorce proceedings including those involving couples such as the McCartneys and the Charmans.
****
Jane Simpson, head of family law at Manches, says: “In collaborative divorce, couples who have decided to end their marriage work with a team of professionals to avoid the sometimes arbitrary and uncertain outcomes of Court proceedings and to achieve a settlement that best meets their specific needs and those of their children.
“Collaborative practice focuses on finding an agreed solution through a series of round table meetings between the couple and their lawyers. Where appropriate other professionals are brought in to help the process, such as accountants, pension advisers and, very importantly, family consultants.”
Posted in Collaborative Divorce No Comments »
Written on
October 24, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
American Chronicle tries to establish the mind set for persuasion.
Pradeep Aggarwal writes (excerpt):
Basic Rule of persuasion: Never Assume or Disrespect
This is the most common mistake that people generally make. They want others to listen to them but they never tend to respect their thoughts, likes and dislikes.
To assume that others have the same attitude, behavior, likes and dislikes as ours, is not right. Every person is unique and special in its own way. No two persons have the same likes and dislikes.
****
When you don’t oppose their beliefs, opinions or values, they tend to feel comfortable with you and trust you. You must let them know that you value their words and respect what they have to say.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy No Comments »
Written on
October 23, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Telegraph focuses on prenuptial agreements and collaborative divorce as “a better way out of marriage”:
Another way to save on cost and distress if there is no prenuptial agreement is to use collaborative law.
Julia Whittle, of independent financial adviser Punter Southall, said: “If a couple can agree at the outset to sit down and discuss matters through the “collaborative” divorce process the whole thing can be quicker, cheaper and more acceptable to both parties.
She said: “Divorce is bad enough – why spend a lot of money on legal fees and drag out the whole process if you don’t have to?”
Issues relating to children could also be resolved with their welfare in mind under the system. But couples should be fairly certain they can reach an agreement .
Mr Levison, who is trained in collaborative law, outlined the drawbacks. He said: “More than 95 per cent of divorce cases are settled before they reach court anyway. Collaborative law is not necessarily less expensive, and it could end up being a lot more expensive if you fail to reach an agreement and have to start again with new lawyers.”
Posted in Collaborative Divorce No Comments »
Written on
October 16, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
USA Today/AP highlighted Paul McCartney’s desire to maintain his dignity during his divorce from Heather Mills. The former Beatle told Radio Times Magazine:
“As Winston Churchill once said, ‘If you’re going through hell, keep going!’ . . . The only solution is to remain dignified. If I don’t keep a silence about it, I lose this idea of being dignified.”
Posted in Poems/Quotes No Comments »
Written on
October 14, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
If you want more stress, more conflict with the other parent, more troubled children and more expenses, STOP. Read no further, and go directly to court.
If you want more of something else–more balance, more peace, more spirited children, more financial resources to move forward into the future, GO. Read on and read more. Learn about the collaborative divorce process.
Ousky, Ron and Webb, Stuart, The Collaborative Way to Divorce: The Revolutionary Method that Results in Less Stress, Lower Costs, and Happier Kids–Without Going to Court (Hudson Street Press, 2006)
Book Description from Amazon:
For the millions of couples who face divorce each year, The Smart Divorce offers an alternative to court without giving up getting what you want.
Research reveals that how a couple conducts themselves during a divorce has far greater impact on their children than the divorce itself. Compassionate, clear, and comprehensive, The Smart Divorce is the first trade book to introduce a dignified, highly strategic solution to divorce-the collaborative process, a nationally acclaimed approach that is fast transforming how couples dissolve their marriages, divide their assets, and reinvent their post divorce relationships, particularly when they share custody of their children.
Based on the central tenet that both participants agree to resolve their differences with no intention of ever going to court, the collaborative process focuses on finding common interests while allowing each person in the couple to hire active legal representation. Stressing cooperation over confrontation and resolution over revenge, the smart divorce is beneficial in that it is generally less expensive and quicker than litigation, gives the couple greater control over the outcome of their divorce, and keeps children out of the controversy.
Guiding readers through the steps of the collaborative process so that they may make better, more informed decisions, The Smart Divorce isn’t about “going easy” on your spouse. It’s about ending up with more money, less stress, and happier kids without going to court.
Tesler, Pauline and Thompson, Peggy, Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move On With Your Life (ReganBooks/Harper Collins, 2006)
Book Description from Amazon:
About half of all marriages in the United States end in divorce. The unfortunate reality is that most of these divorces result in unnecessary collateral damage, as the family issues involved are far too complex and personal for a court to address. Now there is a better way.
In Collaborative Divorce, Pauline Tesler and Peggy Thompson present the first complete, step-by-step explanation of the groundbreaking collaborative divorce method that is revolutionizing the way couples end their marriages. Tesler and Thompson, two pioneers who train collaborative professionals around the world, walk you through the stages of collaborative divorce. With real life examples and practical exercises, they provide useful insight into how divorce can be handled constructively and entirely outside of the court system.
Working with a team of caring specialists that includes two lawyers, two coaches, a financial consultant, and a child specialist (if necessary), you and your spouse focus on building a consensus that addresses the needs of everyone who will be directly affected by the divorce. This exciting new paradigm empowers you—not lawyers or a judge—to shape the outcome of your divorce, as you:
* Stay out of court and save time
* Create long-term financial and parenting plans that work
* Play an active role in designing your life after the divorce
* Understand and address your children’s needs
* Conserve emotional and financial resources
Though divorce will always be painful, Collaborative Divorce introduces you to an effective alternative that will address your legal, financial, and emotional needs and achieve the best family arrangement possible. Whether you’ve already begun the process or are still weighing your options, Collaborative Divorce is essential reading that will inspire you to approach divorce as a vehicle for conflict resolution, healing, and positive, long-term change.
Posted in Collaborative Divorce No Comments »
Written on
October 13, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
PR-GB.com summarizes “Influence: The Psychology Of Persuasion” by Robert Cialdini.
Robin McKay writes (excerpt):
Reciprocity
People are more willing to comply with requests (for favors, services, information, concessions, etc.) from those who have provided such things first. This is the old ‘give and take’ scenario – if I do this for you, will you do something for me? . . .
Commitment/Consistency
People are more willing to be moved in a particular direction if they see it as consistent with an existing commitment. . . .
Authority
People are more willing to follow the directions or recommendations of a communicator to whom they attribute relevant authority or expertise. . . .
Social Validation
People are more willing to take a recommended action if they see evidence that many others, especially similar others, are taking it. . . .
Scarcity
. . . People find objects and opportunities more attractive to the degree that they are scarce, rare, or dwindling in availability. . . .
Liking/Friendship/Attractiveness
. . . People prefer to say yes to those they know, like and find attractive.
Posted in Persuasion/Advocacy 1 Comment »
Written on
October 12, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The Social Security Administration presents answers to your questions about Social Security and retirement.
In addition, Nolo has information on Social Security and retirement, including:
Retirement Plans
Enjoying Retirement
Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap and Managed Care
Long-Term Care
Wills & Estate Planning
Power of Attorney
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
October 11, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
The ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY rejects the reasoning of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Opinion No. 115, the sole dissenting voice on the ethics of collaborative divorce. Formal Opinion 07-447 (August 9, 2007) reaffirms the value of the collaborative process:
*a method of alternative dispute resolution in which husband and wife, with their lawyers, work cooperatively to reach a settlement
*an outgrowth of the mediation process
*focus on the interests of both clients
*gathering sufficient information to make informed decisions
*problem-solving atmosphere
*interest-based negotiations
*client empowerment
*development of the full range of options
*decision-making that best meet the needs of the family
*mutually acceptable written resolution without court involvement
Posted in Collaborative Divorce No Comments »
Written on
October 10, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
Obituary for Judge Stephen Karr
Judge Stephen W. Karr, died on September 28, 2007. He was born on the Island of Samos, Greece on June 20, 1919, and emigrated to the United States with his parents, William and Angeline Karr, at the age of 13 months. He graduated from the University of Michigan Literary College and the University of Michigan Law School. Judge Karr practiced law in Grand Rapids for 24 years until his appointment as a United States Magistrate Judge in the federal court in Grand Rapids. He served as a Magistrate Judge for 16 years until his retirement in 1987. Judge Karr served in World War II as a Major in the India-Burma Theater where he was assigned to the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) as the commanding officer of an OSS operational camp training native agents in espionage, intelligence, and guerilla warfare missions. In 1949, he was awarded the Santimala (Peace) Medal by the King of Siam (Thailand) for his service. Following his army discharge, Judge Karr served as a reserve officer in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps where he attained the rank of Colonel as a Military Judge. In 1972, he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service as a General Court Martial Military Judge in the United State Army Judiciary. In 1987, Judge Karr was given the Service to the Profession Award by the Western Michigan Chapter of the Federal Bar Association for his service in the improvement of the administration of justice in the federal courts. Judge Karr is survived by his wife of 57 years, Bette L. Karr; his children, Carol J. Karr (Kevin Briggs), Stephen D. Karr (Melanie), Alan W. Karr (Deborah Greiner), and Catherine J. Karr (Steven DeBroux); his grandchildren, Adam Briggs, Benjamin Briggs, William Briggs, Alex Briggs, Angela Karr, Zoe DeBroux, and Thea DeBroux; and his sister, Ann Cardy (Frank) and brother, James Karr (Judy). A memorial service will be held at Fountain Street Church on Friday, November 2, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to Fountain Street Church or to the University of Michigan for the Stephen W. Karr Scholarship Fund, c/o University of Michigan, 500 South State Street, Suite 5000, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382. Memorial Alternatives 2432 Fuller NE, 363-3700 www.memorialalternatives.com
Posted in General No Comments »
Written on
October 9, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
Proving best interests for change in custody
Dumm v. Brodbeck, Mich.App., July 19, 2007:
Defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a change in custody was in Gwyneth’s best interest. Defendant alleged that plaintiff forced Gwyneth to use the last name “Dumm” at school. Defendant also asserted that officials at Gwyneth’s school told him that Gwyneth did not exhibit behavior reflecting a need for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication. Defendant alleged that Gwyneth was not responding well to the ADHD medication and attacked plaintiff for failing to seek follow-up treatment. He claimed that plaintiff’s parents could testify that Gwyneth was under extreme distress arising from plaintiff’s treatment and control over her. However, defendant presented no affidavits from school officials or plaintiff’s parents or any medical records or documentation from Gwyneth’s physician regarding her behavior and need for medical treatment. Given the lack of evidence supporting defendant’s assertions, the trial court properly determined that defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a change in custody was in Gwyneth’s best interests.
Reduction in income for child support purposes
Stallworth v. Stallworth, 275 Mich.App. 282, 738 N.W.2d 264, April 17, 2007:
Here, the trial court improperly relied on defendant’s reduced income capacity that resulted from his past criminal activities to impute income to him. The court opined that it “[was] not inclined to reward Defendant for his actions by lowering his financial obligations to support his family.” Although it is true that defendant’s criminal actions were voluntary, there is no evidence that defendant committed any crimes with the intent to reduce his income. Indeed, given the nature of the crimes, it could be inferred that defendant was attempting to increase his income. Defendant’s criminal conviction bars him from earning a living in politics, at least now, because he was forced to resign from his most recent elected position. Defendant’s resignation resulted in an involuntary reduction in his income. Although it is true that defendant obviously knew he was committing crimes and did so voluntarily, he has been punished for those crimes. To now cite his criminal conviction as a voluntary lowering of his income in an effort to thwart child and spousal support, is both illogical and legally unprecedented. We cannot do so, and must conclude that it was improper for the trial court to have done so. Therefore, we find that the trial court improperly utilized defendant’s conviction as a reason for imputing income to him.
Sanctions for misconduct in divorce case
Koy v. Koy, 274 Mich.App. 653, 735 N.W.2d 665, March 13, 2007:
When a trial court must resort repeatedly to orders and sanctions of increasing severity to compel a party’s participation in court proceedings, and the party still refuses to comply, the trial court properly exercises its power in entering a default and, if appropriate, a default judgment against that party. As this Court previously stated in Draggoo v. Draggoo, 223 Mich.App. 415, 427, 566 N.W.2d 642 (1997), “In our view, the ultimate sanction of default judgment is a necessary sanction at the trial court’s disposal to require compliance with its interim orders in a divorce case.” Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment.
Notice of foreign court proceedings
Isack v. Isack, 274 Mich.App. 259, 733 N.W.2d 85, February 13, 2007:
In conclusion [case involving Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act (UFMJRA)], because defendant did not have notice of the summary disposition motion in Canada that resulted in the issuance of the judgment against her, the trial court was permitted to decline to recognize it under MCL 691.1154(2)(a).
Income for child support purposes
Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich.App. 666, 733 N.W.2d 71, January 23, 2007:
Because the trial court did not properly apply the MCSF in calculating the applicable child support, we vacate the trial court’s child support order and remand for recalculation of the support order. On remand, the trial court shall recalculate defendant’s income consistent with this opinion. Upon recalculation, the trial court may elect to deviate from the MCSF should it conclude that application of the MCSF would be unjust or inappropriate under the facts of this case. If the trial court elects to deviate from the formula, it shall satisfy the requirements of MCL 552.605(2)(a) through (d). See Burba, supra at 643-649, 610 N.W.2d 873. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Changing domicile versus changing custody
Rittershaus v. Rittershaus, 273 Mich.App. 462, 730 N.W.2d 262, January 04, 2007:
Defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to change the domicile of the party’s minor children from Michigan to Texas and denying his motion to change the standing custody order to award him sole physical custody. With respect to the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to change the domicile of the minor children, we remand for the trial court to make findings and a determination regarding whether an established custodial environment existed with respect to defendant. If the trial court finds that an established custodial environment existed with respect to defendant, then the trial court must conduct an inquiry into whether a change in domicile is in the minor children’s best interests, MCL 722.23. With respect to the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to change custody, we likewise remand to the trial court to consider the best-interest factors of MCL 722.23. On remand, the trial court shall decide whether the existing record is sufficient to permit it to make these determinations or whether an additional evidentiary hearing will be conducted.
Fraud in divorce cases
Estes v. Titus, 273 Mich.App. 356, 731 N.W.2d 119, December 21, 2006:
In this wrongful death action, plaintiff appeals by leave granted the trial court’s order denying her motion to add defendant’s former spouse as a party for purposes of conducting an evidentiary hearing to inquire into the fairness of the property division approved in a divorce judgment entered while this action was pending. Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the marital property settlement exceeded a fair and equitable division, it was a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), MCL 566.31 et seq. We agree and reverse.
Decision-making authority in joint custody cases
Shulick v. Richards, 273 Mich.App. 320, 729 N.W.2d 533, December 19, 2006:
Plaintiff appeals as of right an order changing the physical and legal custody of the parties’ minor children from plaintiff, solely, to the parties, jointly. We hold that the trial court’s finding that the parties could cooperate on important decisions concerning the welfare of the children was not against the great weight of the evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody of the minor children. We also conclude, however, that the trial court erred in dividing the decision-making authority between the parties in the event that they cannot agree on decisions affecting the welfare of their children and thus remand to the trial court for removal of this provision from the order.
Acknowledgment of parentage versus Paternity Act
Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich.App. 149, 729 N.W.2d 256, December 07, 2006:
We hold that an order of filiation cannot be entered under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq. , if, under the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1001 et seq. , a proper acknowledgment of parentage was previously executed and has not been revoked. This is because, under MCL 722.1003 and MCL 722.1004, an unrevoked acknowledgment already legally established paternity and conferred the status of natural and legal father on the man executing the acknowledgment, which in turn entitled him to seek custody or parenting time if desired and obligated him to pay support if appropriate. Accordingly, the trial court erred by ruling that the child has two legally recognized fathers under both the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act and the Paternity Act. The case is remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this opinion and further reflection on the issue of revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage.
Deductions and taxes for child support purposes
Peterson v. Peterson, 272 Mich.App. 511, 727 N.W.2d 393, October 24, 2006:
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted the trial court order adopting the Friend of the Court (FOC) recommendation concerning defendant’s child support obligation. The issue presented to us is whether the trial court, in the context of calculating defendant’s child support obligation, erred in deducting taxes from defendant’s income. These taxes were not actually incurred by defendant, but theoretically would have been incurred had defendant not been entitled to a depreciation allowance in preparing his income tax returns. This depreciation allowance indisputably could not be deducted from income when examining the parties’ income levels relative to child support. Because the 2001 version of the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (MCSF Manual) does not allow deductions for theoretical taxes, as opposed to taxes actually incurred, on income received by a parent, and because limiting deductions to taxes actually incurred is not unjust or inappropriate, the trial court erred in its child support calculation, and we reverse and remand.
Posted in Law: Cases/Statutes No Comments »
Written on
October 8, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
USA Today opens A.J. Jacobs’ journey as revealed in his The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible.
Carol Memmott writes (excerpt):
Biggest lesson? “Your behavior shapes your beliefs. If you act like a good person, you eventually become a better person. I wasn’t allowed to gossip, so eventually I started to have fewer petty thoughts to gossip about. I had to help the less fortunate, so I started to become less self-absorbed. I am not Gandhi or Angelina Jolie, but I made some progress.”
Posted in Relationships 1 Comment »
Written on
October 3, 2007
by
David C. Sarnacki
CNN/Oprahpresent “8 entirely new ideas about love.” As corny as the title sounds, it’s really worth a read.
Everyone would benefit by knowing this tidbit (excerpt):
A new study has found that the way you respond to your partner’s good news may be more important than how you react to his disappointments.
Couples who celebrated each other’s happy events (like promotions or raises) reported greater satisfaction in their relationship and were less likely to break up than those who offered support only during rough times, says lead study author Shelly L. Gable, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara.
****
The finding that praise boosted a relationship more than a sympathetic response to bad news surprised Gable . . . .
****
She isn’t saying couples need to celebrate every event with a five-course dinner; simple and sincere praise is enough. “It’s the thought that counts,” she says. “Although I’d never turn down a five-course dinner.”
Posted in Relationships No Comments »
