Michigan Military Divorce

Qualifying event | Health care coverage

In today's economy, especially with health care insurers under high scrutiny, family law practitioners and families in transition need to be very clear about what is a "qualifying event" that may cause rescission of health care insurance in the future and also, perhaps, efforts by the insurer to recoup payments made for past medical treatments. In particular, folks should be aware that by the express terms of ERISA, the federal law governing employer-provided insurance, entry of a judgment of separate maintenance, as well as a divorce, is a "qualifying event" that means an employee's spouse or former spouse is no longer entitled to be covered under the employer insurance plan.

Women and children | Report about increased health concerns

My readers know that children's health is a major concern with me, as is teen pregnancy and maternal health. The following Comment, published in Journal Watch, raises major concerns about the increasing birth rates, increasing infant mortality, increasing teen pregnancy and increasing incidence of cesarean section for women. If these aren't your issues, now is the time to hit the delete key.

Why do young parents need a Will?

In an Associated Press story reported today online at http://sphere.com, the reasons why parents of young children should have a Will become instantly apparent. The AP reports on an horrific vehicular accident that instantly killed the parents, Karl Heiss and Marisa Bauducco-Heiss and left their 10-year-old daughter with a catastrophic brain injury. Alden, the Heiss' 6-year-old son was more fortunate. A proper car safety seat left him injured, but he has recovered fully.

It was only after the accident that the Heiss' good friend, entrusted with their 7-sentence, 2 page holographic Will, brought it to the attention of the two sets of grandparents. The Heisses had decided that Marisa's parents, who reside in a village named Ushuaia, near Terra del Feugo at the tip of South America, should have custody eleven months of the year and that Karl's parents, who live in Malibu, California, should have the children one month of the year.

Married (Happily) with Issues

The New York Times follows up the very successful article by Laura Munson regarding how to make room for reconciliation instead of simply walking away from a long-term marriage with another article.

Titled, "Married (Happily) with Issues," this lengthy article chronicles the efforts of Elizabeth Weil and Daniel Duane to improve their marriage. For those who think enriching a marriage is a worthwhile effort, this article is well worth your time.

Read Married (Happily) with Issues here.

Attorney who assists a party does not violate ethics rules

An interesting Court of Appeals case was released yesterday. Shelly Reynolds filed an action for quiet title to real estate after her former spouse and his mother filed liens against her property. David and Laura Reynolds answered and filed counterclaims of "false liens, slander of title, perjury and harassment." Shelly Reynolds answered the counterclaim and raised several affirmative defenses, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, etc. [That must have been one bitter divorce case.]

Joint Custody of Fido | Worth $40,000?

Yesterday in Salem, N.J, a judge ordered a former couple to share custody of Dexter, after the pair paid lawyers $40,000 in their contest for custody. Fox TV reports that one “parent” isn’t happy with a judge’s custody decision and may appeal.

Judge John Tomasello said Doreen Houseman and Eric Dare, cohabitants who lived together for 13 years but never married and broke up in 2006, must share equal custody of the dog. Dare told reporters he may appeal the decision.

Dexter was earlier declared to be the parties' joint property. Therefore, a suitable custody arrangement had to be determined. That judge said that there were three options: one or the other “parent” could get full custody or a joint visitation agreement can be decided.

Change life insurance beneficiary after divorce

Another case has been decided by the Michigan court of appeals dealing with a challenge to a life insurance policy payout to the divorced spouse because the former spouse forgot to change his beneficiary after the divorce. In Brown v Wright, the judgment of divorce had the standard statutory provision: "Any of the rights of either party in any policy or contract of life, endowment or any insurance of the other as beneficiary or otherwise, is hereby extinguished unless specifically preserved by this Judgment."

Breaking up | Don't shed any tears for me

Hmm let's have a little music with this post . . . Paul Carrack singing "Don't Shed any tears for me" . . . seems like a good accompaniment to this little heart breaker question posed yesterday about how to end a bad relationship. "Cab fare to nowhere is what you are . . . all that I saw in you I now see through . . . "

Here's the question: "How should I advise my client (friend?) to get rid of a free-loader BF (or GF?).

Be careful what you wish for: Parenting time pitfalls to avoid

In Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339; ___ NW2d ___ (2009), decided by the Michigan court of appeals on April 14, 2009, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that child custody provisions in a judgment of divorce cannot be and will not be governed by contract privileges.

In this case, the parties entered into a judgment of divorce that (1) granted Plaintiff Mother sole legal and sole physical custody, (2) granted the father “reasonable parenting time as agreed to by the parties,” (3) did not restrict Plaintiff Mother from moving more than 100 miles from Defendant Father, and (4) allowed interstates moves without permission from the trial court. Now there’s a recipe for disaster!

Here is the specific wording from the Brausch judgment of divorce. Following that are some specific guidelines for parents who should try to avoid the problems caused by the wording.

Jurisdiction in cases of military service or employment abroad

     People who are in the armed services or who are employed abroad do not lose their residency and do not lose subject matter jurisdiction in a County in Michigan and in the State of Michigan so long as they can demonstrate the requisite “intent to remain” under Michigan law.

Service persons and/or employees working abroad | residence of intent. All servicepersons must declare a legal residence to the DOD—this is the residence to which they intend to return upon leaving the service. In Michigan the rule of law is that the intent to remain citizens of Michigan is sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction over a divorce in a Michigan court.