|
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 11: Mazurkiewicz v
Mazurkiewicz, 164 Mich. App. 492 (1987), this factor is to be weighted in
father's favor where mother had an "inclination" towards "inappropriate
relations with other persons during her marriage." (This case may be important
to remember where there is adultery involved; if the court is precluded from
considering the relationships under the morality factor, Mazurkiewicz
says it may be relevant under the permanence factor.) Caution: since this note
was originally written, the Supreme Court has gone to some length to explicate
how trial courts should apply the morality factor. [See Fletcher v
Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (1994).] In Fletcher, the court recited
extramarital conduct of which the children were unaware, and also supported the
Court of Appeals treatment of permanence: "In this case, there was no danger of
the family unit splitting up, regardless of which party was awarded custody.
Because the evidence favors neither party, we find the parties to be equally
positioned to provide permanence as single parent family units." The court
specifically rejects "acceptability" of the proposed homes as being relevant
because it is addressed under b and c. Fletcher v Fletcher, 200
Mich. App. 505 (1993) at p 518.
|
