Terry Bankert Pod Cast

CHANGE IN CHILD CUSTODY (810) 235-1970 ATTORNEY BANKERT I OFTEN HAVE A CLIENT COME IN WITH THESE FACTS. The parties were given joint legal custody of their child, but plaintiff-mother had sole physical custody. HOW DOES DAD CHANGE THIS? Presented here by Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert (810) 235-1970 #CHILDCUSTODY, #CUSTODYMODIFICATION, #FLINTATTORNEY, #FLINTLAWYER, #DIVORCE, #POSTDIVORCE YOU HAVE TO TELL THE COURT WHAT THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IS. Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). IN A RECENT CASE I REVIEWED THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWS. Defendant later moved to change custody, alleging physical abuse, repeated exposure to different men, and the instability of plaintiff’s life as reasons to revisit custody. The court found that defendant’s “motion included allegations and evidence sufficient to establish—at the very least—that there were ‘contested factual issues that must be resolved’” for the trial court to make an informed decision. IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT ADDITIONALLY THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. video evidence as well as “evidence that the child had begun to engage in self-injurious behavior and that she was struggling with frustration.” In addition, the court noted that Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). “a change in disciplinary techniques to include corporal punishment may constitute a change in circumstances that has a significant effect on the child.” IN SUMMARY A Parent may not modify or amend a previous judgment or order involving custody except for “proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances.” MCL 722.27(1)(c). The Legislature established this burden to minimize disruptions to the child’s custody. See Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567, 576-577; 309 NW2d 532 (1981). Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a party requesting a change must establish proper cause or a change in circumstances before the trial court may even hold a hearing to consider the requested change. See Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 508-509; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). The Court concluded that the phrase “change of circumstances” should be understood to require the movant “to prove that, since the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child, which have had or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have materially changed.” Id. at 513. This Court stated that “not just any change” will suffice to justify revisiting custody—the “evidence must demonstrate something more than the normal life changes” to rise to the level of a change of circumstances that would warrant revisiting custody. Id. at 513-514. [see Michigan Court of Appeals Unpublished, #72064 ] FLINT ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT 235-1970 WWW.ATTORNEYBANKERT.COM

2022 Redesign and privatization of mental health services in Michigan. We must demand a strong safety net to include strong recipient rights. By Terry Bankert Vice Chair of Genesee Health System and Flint Based Family Law Attorney. 235-1970

Terry Bankert is a Michigan/Flint/Genesee County Attorney specializing in Family Law, child custody, parenting time , support and other areas.

A default is not a finding. No proper cause or change in circumstances required. Vodvarka vs Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003)

By Terry Bankert Family Law Attorney Flint Mi. Genesee County. 235-1970

Overview introduction