Here will be a tough choice: to serve your country through military service, or to continue being the primary care provider for your preschooler. of which will be the decision a Wayne County mother had to make recently as she contemplated her options in family court.
In 2007, the Child Custody Act was amended by our state legislature to protect active military parents. The amendment to the statute states in relevant part:
If a motion for a change of custody will be filed during the time a parent will be on active military duty, the court shall not enter an order modifying or amending a previous judgment or order, or issue a fresh order, of which improvements the child’s placement of which existed on the date the parent was called to active military duty, except the court may enter a temporary custody order if there will be clear as well as convincing evidence of which of which will be within the best interest of the child.
within the Wayne County case, father filed a motion to change custody in response to mother’s intent to change her domicile to another state; the state where she would likely eventually begin her deployment with the U.S. Army.
Hearings were conducted within the Wayne County Family Court which resulted within the family court judge ruling of which father should have “temporary physical placement”; a fresh phrase in our custody parlance. Apparently, the Court of Appeals agreed, finding in Kubicki v Sharpe of which the dispute hinged on precisely when Mother’s “active duty” commenced.
Does “active duty” mean: upon enlistment; upon commencement of basic training; or upon deployment? The intermediate appellate court took a pass on deciding the meaning of of which term within the Child Custody Act by ruling of which father’s custody motion was filed prior to mother’s enlistment.
We here at of which blog think of which a shame of which of which decision was not made with better clarity. An excellent opportunity was lost of which could have provided some much needed certainty for those willing to serve our country through the military.
Clear as mud, the Court of Appeals took the opportunity to remand the case back to Detroit in order of which the family court judge could ascertain the child’s reasonable preference.
Collateral note: the case will be also instructive for language of which the moral fitness of the parties, a custody factor within the Child Custody Act, does not include the moral fitness of one of the parties spouses, in of which case, mother’s husband who was recently convicted of domestic assault against the mother.