For some time now, members of Michigan's House of Representatives have proposed a sea change to the Child Custody Act. Last week, Representative Jim Runestad [R-White Lake] re-introduced a modified version of his seemingly perennial child custody and parenting bill.

The attempt, this time around, is known as HB 4691 and seeks to change the spirit as well as the label of Michigan's child custody law. Runestad's bill proposes a new title to the act: the shared parenting act.

In the spirit of this truly sea changing proposed legislation, Runestad seeks to introduce a presumption into the custody act: spending equal time with each parent is in the best interests of the child. A parent seeking to overcome this presumption would need to introduce "clear and convincing" evidence that such a parenting arrangement is not in the child's best interest.

Sounds simple and reasonable enough. Yet, whenever this bill gets re-introduced each session, it is usually met with firm resistance from the organized family bar.

The Oakland County Bar Association, for example, has published the following statement in opposition to the predecessor bill to this term's attempt:

Mandatory equal physical custody would make the best interest of the child factors irrelevant and treat all families exactly the same.  It would require that both parents live in the same school district or travel distances for schooling, require the children to move frequently from house to house regardless of the child’s preference and allow any parent, including convicted felons, to demand equal parenting time. Requiring a standard of ‘unfitness’ to be found by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ directly contradicts nearly all other provisions of the Child Custody Act.  This bill again attempts to remedy a perceived problem which, in fact, does not exist.  The current custody statute(s) and subsequent case law clearly permits a court to determine when it is in the best interest of a child that joint custody, or equal parenting time, be ordered.

This bill focuses on the needs of the parent instead of the needs of the children. 

The opponents and proponents of the bill will likely be heard over the next few months while the bill is debated in the state house's judiciary committee. In recent hearings conducted in May, Wayne County Judge Richard Halloran, the current chair of the state bar's family law section, testified in opposition to the bill. Judge Halloran, like many other family court professionals, is concerned about the effect the new law will have on the ability to address the intersection of child custody and domestic violence.

Representative Runestad, however, is now the chair of the Judiciary Committee. Perhaps because of this, many family law professionals have the sense that the proposed legislation has traction this time around and could become the new custody and parenting law of the state at some point during this legislative session.

Details are always devilish. The bill also constructs a wholesale replacement of the 11 statutory custody factors -long-used by judges- with a new set of factors for the family court to consider. These new factors, according to the bill's sponsors, are designed to ensure a child's meaningful relationship with both parents.

Our good friend and appellate lawyer, Scott Bassett, a lawyer's lawyer if there ever was one, openly wonders on the state bar's family law listserve why the legislature would jettison nearly 75-years of appellate court custody jurisprudence that has developed and honed the child custody act. Darn good question if you were to ask us over here at the Law Blogger.

Some of our more jaded colleagues have stated to this blogger that the bill does nothing to eliminate custody battles; it simply changes the look of the battlefield. Also, opponents say, it puts the parent's litigation agenda over the child's genuine needs and interests.

We will monitor the bill's progress and let our readers know what happens next. Meanwhile, we invite you to post your comments on this hot family law topic. 

Post script: meetings scheduled for Thursday, June 15, were postponed yesterday.

Update: 06/21/2017 - Runestad's bill passed the judiciary committee -no surprise there- and proceeds to the plenary house for further discussion after the recess. 

Post #594

www.clarkstonlegal.com