Michigan Divorce Lawyers Blog

Celebrities such as Charlie Sheen seem to constantly be in the news while their divorces or custody battles take center stage. One wonders if that's the way these celebrities like it while the average person doesn't want anyone to know his/her business.

In Sheen's case, the unfortunate scenario appears to be a situation where both parents have had their share of problems. That really puts the judge in a conundrum because the judge's obligation is to consider any custody decisions in light of what he/she believes is in the best interests of the minor children.

Of course, the law and how it is applied varies from state to state. In Michigan, there are 11 best interest factors for the court to consider. They are all given equal value so even when the a minor child has a preference, that is only one factor. All of the factors must be considered by the court unless the parties can come to an agreement.

In Sheen's case, no agreement appears forthcoming and each side, despite his/her problems, is fighting desperately for an advantage. What motivates them? Well, in Sheen's case, he appears to be obsessed with "winning". What is truly a win for the children is when the parents can agree on an arrangement and when the parents can get along for the long haul. The media has fueled these public battles in a manner that is ultimately detrimental to the children.

Hopefully, Sheen and his divorce attorneys/advisors will stop trying to litigate his divorce in a public forum and the parties will work out a resolution that is truly in the best interests of the children. That would constitute a "win" for the kids!

Resource: Charlie Sheen's "Goddesses" Focus of Custody Battle, Vancouver Sun, March 3, 2011

When there are children involved in a divorce proceeding, it is encumbent upon the parents to foster and encourage a positive relationship with the other parent regardless of how contentious the divorce may have been. The divorce results in a realignment of the family unit which can be followed by further changes that were never even contemplated during the divorce.

One such change is that one of the parents may have an opportunity to move beyond the 100 mile restriction that is contained in all divorce judgments. Common reasons for such a move is to be closer to other extended family that can help raise the children or for a new job opportunity. Either way, the parent requesting the change in domicile must either obtain the agreement and consent of the other parent or if there is no agreement, the parent requesting the move must prove that the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent, that the move is not an effort to deprive the other parent access to the child(ren), that it is possible to fashion a schedule that continues to foster a relationship with the other parent, that the moving parent is not trying to secure a financial advantage over the other parent to reduce a child support obligation and consider whether there is any history of domestic violence.

In McKimmy v. Melling, a recent case decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the trial court was found to have misapplied the third factor by simply concluding that the proposed parenting time schedule was not the best plan; but this decision was reversed and sent back to the lower court so that it could deterimine whether the parenting time schedule proposed by plaintiff provided "a realistic opportunity" or "an adequate basis," to preserve and foster the relationship the non-moving parent had with the children.

So, if you are considering a move out of state with your children following divorce, you should consult an experienced Michigan divorce lawyer to consider whether you believe you can prove the above factors can be satisfied in your case.