|
( B
)
The capacity and disposition of
the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance
and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her
religion or creed, if any.
-
Who bathes and dresses the child?
-
Who stays home from work when the child is sick?
-
Who takes responsibility for involvement in academic affairs?
-
Who takes responsibility for involvement in extracurricular activities?
-
Who disciplines the child?
-
Who uses preferable discipline techniques?
-
Who has preference because of the others verbal abuse, substance abuse,
or arrest record?
-
Who has preference because of ability to provide the child access to
extended family?
-
Are there other children, including children not a part of this
litigation, whose custody should impact upon the court's decision in this
case?
|
|
This information comes directly from the Washtenaw County website which is
"public domain." Except for formatting, no changes have been made to this
material. It is included herein with the specific knowledge of the County
webmaster. Further, as a Washtenaw County Circuit court writing, this is neither
binding precedent nor governing dictate even on other judges in this specific
county.
Footnote 1: Written by The Honorable Judge John N. Kirkendall, Family Division, Washtenaw
County Trial Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The author gratefully acknowledges
contributions from the following lawyers and judges: Craig S. Ross, Esq.,
Washtenaw County Friend of the Court's Office; Norman N. Robbins, Esq., domestic
relations practitioner, author and lecturer; Hon. Bruce A. Newman, Genesee
County Probate Judge; Hon. Joan E. Young, Oakland County Circuit Judge; and
Monika H. Sacks, domestic relations practitioner, author and lecturer. They have
reviewed the chart and suggested additions and improvements. I thank Stuart D.
Lurie, law clerk, who has helped revise the chart since its first publication.
Errors are mine. The chart should be viewed as "evolving", not "finished."
Therefore, the reader's suggestions and comments will be helpful.
Footnote 7: Harper v Harper,
199 Mich. App. 409 (1993) states that the court may consider disciplinary
techniques of the parties toward the minor child. Here where one party used his
hand in discipline and the other used a paddle, this could be used against the
party using the paddle. There was testimony by an expert also that the paddle
using party was unable to guide children in a joint task during a session being
observed while the other party was able to provide the leadership and direction
to assist the children to accomplish the goal.
|
