NEW CHARGES FILED IN FLINT WATER EMERGENCY 6/14/17 . This is why Flintoids do not trust government.

#Flint-FLINTS EX EMERGENCY MANAGER DARNELL EARLYand HOWARD CROFT NOW CHARGED WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.[fonger/mlive]

 

“The director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services is accused of involuntary manslaughter in the Flint water Emergency.”[tv12]” Nick Lyon is also facing a misconduct in office charge. “[tv12]

“…Dr Eden Wells, chief medical executive of DHHS, was charged with obstruction of justice, a 15 year felony  and lying to a police officer. [fonger/mlive]

It is alledged that Lyon failed to warn the p[ublic  of the Legionnaires outbreak.

 

“NEW FLINT WATER CRISIS CHARGE TIED DIRECTLY TO LEGIONNAIRES OUTBREAK.”[Fonger/mlive]

” These charges are tied directly to how they handled a Legionnaires disease outbreak that killed 12 people  in Genesee County.[fonger/mlive]

 

It is alledged that Dr.Wells was “threatening to withold funding for the Flint Area Community Health and Environmental partnership if the  partnership did not cease its investigation into the source of the Legionnaires disease outbreak.[fonger/mlive]

” Involuntary manslaughter charges have been added to previously charged Stephen Busch, Liane Shekter-Smith, Howard Croft and Darnell Earley.[fonger/mlive]

 

 

 

Advertisements

FlintDivorce.com 235-1970 

SelectBankert.com to fight for your interests in Family Law, (child custody, child support,parents rights, divorce,) and Public Advocacy (your political rights and representation in this great city and country) @terrybankert 235-1970 FlintDivorce.com 

High Court Says Cities Can Sue Banks Over Foreclosure Costs – Law360

https://www.law360.com/banking/articles/875229/high-court-says-cities-can-sue-banks-over-foreclosure-costs?nl_pk=6c3ccba6-5bf5-4f58-80f8-1b2befa10619&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=banking&read_more=1. Good to know but hard to do!

CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY IN FLINT MI. 235-1970

DID YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASK THE COURT TO CHANGE CUSTODY?

The party or parent that starts a change of Child Custody  in Flint ,Genesee County or Michigan is called the moving party. The party moving to alter custody bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of demonstrating that proper cause or a change of circumstances exists before the trial court may even undertake an inquiry into whether an established custodial environment exists. Id. at 509. For help contact attorneybankert.com Lawyer Terry R. Bankert 810-235

In Vodvarka, the Court’s set forth an “objective test for courts to apply in determining what constitutes proper cause or a change of circumstances.” Id. at 510. Recognizing that the underlying purpose of MCL 722.27(1)(c) is to minimize unwarranted disruptions in a child’s custody, and “[p]roviding a stable environment for children[,]”  Courts set forth guidelines for determining if proper cause exists. Id. at 509, 511.

Proper  cause means one or more appropriate grounds that have or could have a significant effect on the child’s life to the extent that a reevaluation of the child’s custodial situation should be undertaken. * * * [T]o establish “proper cause” necessary to revisit a custody order, a movant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an appropriate ground for legal action to be taken by the trial court.

The appropriate ground(s) should be relevant to at least one of the twelve statutory best interest factors, and must be of such magnitude to have a significant effect on the child’s well-being.
When a movant has demonstrated such proper cause, the trial court can then engage in a reevaluation of the statutory best interest factors. [Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 511-512 (footnote omitted).]

Presented here By Flint Attorney Terry R. Bankert 235-1970

YOUR #MEDICARE & #SOCIALSECURITY WILL END AS YOU KNOW IT!

Who will tell your mother? #PresidentTrump has a plan to replace the #AffordableCareAct to a block grant to providing health care to low-income people on Medicaid terms set by the States. ” I found the following in MotherJones and other places on the internet it must be true. (SeeMother Jones KEVIN DRUM JAN. 19, 2017 1:39 PM)
Did you know The GOP has long sought the destruction of the Affordable Care Act and privatization of Medicare and Social Security. 
To pay for their proposed new infrastructure the Trump Team Wants to Slash your Social Security, your Medicare, your Medicaid, and your health care. 
@realdonaldtrump is ready as @POTUS to take an ax to government spending. 
Trump’s team would reduce federal spending by $10.5 trillion over 10 years.
“This is terrifying, of course, but it’s also puzzling. $10.5 trillion over ten years? That’s a trillion dollars a year. If you eliminated the domestic discretionary budget entirely, you’d only save half a trillion bucks. So how do they do it?”
The answer, of course, is that the only way to cut that kind of money is to take a meat axe to everything, including Social Security and Medicare.
Medicaid: No details. There will be a spending cap, and all mandatory spending will somehow be cut to fit.
Medicare: Increase eligibility age, add a “temporary” premium for Part A, increase premiums for Parts B and D, phase out subsidies for seniors with “significant” income, “reform” cost-sharing arrangements, transition to vouchers premium support starting in 2021.
Domestic Discretionary: Magic spending cap.
Social Security: Increase retirement age, index retirement age so it keeps going up, reduce benefits by adopting chained CPI for inflation adjustments, and “transition the payment to a flat, anti-poverty benefit focused on individuals who need it most,” whatever that means.
#trump team proposing cuts to over a hundred programs. Many small These include catfish programs, the Ex-Im bank, climate programs, Amtrak, the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. etc. 
About 80 percent of the savings come from a small number of programs:

Energy subsidies: $28 billion
Land and Water Conservation Fund: $20 billion

Various HHS/HUD jobs program: $10 billion

Davis-Bacon: $9 billion

Federal Transit Administration: $4 billion

Nine climate programs: $4 billion

Military health care: $4 billion

Slash a bunch of hippy-dippy stuff (clean energy, water conservation, transit, climate); some employment stuff (jobs programs, Davis-Bacon); and military health care spending. 

Then take a meat axe to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and everything else, ( source Mother Jones and Heritage Foundation.)
For those that wanted change we’ll here it is. @terrybankert

Berlin, we have a problem

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/opinions/berlin-truck-attack-opinion-andelman/index.html@terrybankett. What has happened to Democracy? When a President ignores or attacks the free media what happens to truth. Our country will be taken over by the clowns to the left of trump and the jokers to the right. Intense civil disobedience will follow Trumps stupid policies. International forces will move against our interests because of the intellectual vacuum created by all #Trump

GENESEE COURT GIVES DAD CHANGE OF CUSTODY , COURT OF APPEALS TAKES IT AWAY.BY Flint Divorce Attorney 235-1970.

#TERRY TALKS “Ideas worth sharing “

# 11/05/13 , -TOPIC #Change of #Child #Custody in #Michigan.

The Defendant mother appeals as of right the Genesee trial court’s order granting Father plaintiff’s motion to change custody with respect to the parties’ minor child. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remand for a determination by
the Genesee County trial court whether there existed proper cause or a change of circumstances, as necessary to modify the previous custody award.

To be clear,The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the determination of proper
cause or a change of circumstances is a mandatory ruling that must expressly be made by the trial court whenever modification of a custody order is being contemplated, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue or even agree that proper cause or a change of circumstances  exists.

On remand, the trial court is to rule on whether there was proper cause or a change of circumstances. The existing evidentiary record should be sufficient to make the determination, but the trial court is free to entertain additional proofs if the court deems it necessary. The Vodvarka decision provides an excellent discussion of what constitutes proper cause and a change of circumstances and should be utilized by the trial court. Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 509-514. Should the trial court rule that the threshold burden was not satisfied, the court shall
deny plaintiff’s motion to change custody. Should the trial court rule otherwise, defendant, if desired, can pursue a new appeal relative to the threshold ruling.

By Terry R. Bankert P.C., 810-235-1970, Ideas Worth Sharing of Flint, of the law, and by Flint Michigan People. See also Facebook Group www.terrytalks.com

DATE:11/05/13

TIME:7:00 am

Issues discussed in this presentation  are :

Motion to change custody;

Whether “proper cause” or “a change of circumstances” (COC) existed;

MCL 722.27(1)(c);

Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; In re Anjoski;

Mitchell v. Mitchell; MCL 722.24(1); Harvey v. Harvey; “Established custodial environment” (ECE)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: Bangs v. Groulx

e-Journal Number: 55655

Judge(s): Per Curiam – Murphy, Cavanagh, and Stephens

UNPUBLISHED ,October 22, 2013 , Michigan Court of Appeals No. 314566

Genesee Circuit Court  Family Division  LC No. 08-285186-DP

DECISION OF THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

FATHERS WIN WAS REVERSED

 

The Michigan  Court of Appeals decided  that “the determination of proper cause or a change of circumstances is a mandatory ruling that must expressly be made by the  Genesee County trial court whenever modification of a custody order is being contemplated, regardless of whether the parties raise the issue or even agree that proper cause or a change of circumstances exists,” the Michigan Court of Appeals  reversed the Genesee County Family Court, the trial court’s order granting the plaintiff-father’s motion to change custody of the parties’ child and remanded.

LOCAL TRIAL COURTS ARE USUALLY UPHELD

Local Courts are usually upheld.with respect to child custody disputes, “all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.”

MCL 722.28. MCL 722.27 provides in relevant part:

(1) If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an

original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the

circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best interests of

the child the court may do 1 or more of the following:

. . .

(c) Modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause

shown or because of change of circumstances[.]

VODVARKA CASE

The seminal case on the threshold inquiry of whether there existed proper cause or a

change of circumstances for purposes of modifying a custody order is of course Vodvarka v

Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). In construing MCL 722.27(1)(c), the

Vodvarka panel stated that the party seeking a change in custody must establish, by a

preponderance of the evidence, either proper cause or a change of circumstances, and if the

movant fails to so establish, “the court is precluded from holding a child custody hearing.”

Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 508-509; see also In re Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41, 53; 770 NW2d 1

(2009).1

BURDEN TO SHOW PROPER CAUSE OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES

Absent satisfaction of the burden to show proper cause or a change of circumstances, a

trial court is not authorized under the statute to revisit a valid prior custody decision and to

engage in reconsideration of the statutory best-interest factors. Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 508-

509. The purpose of requiring proper cause or a change of circumstances, as well as requiring

clear and convincing evidence to change an established custodial environment, is to erect a

barrier against removing a child from an established custodial environment except in compelling

cases. Id. at 509; Anjoski, 283 Mich App at 53.

UNDERLYING JUDGEMENT

A 2010 consent judgment awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their child. In 2012, plaintiff moved to modify custody, seeking sole or primary physical custody.

He “set forth a litany of allegations” he claimed constituted proper cause or a COC. In her response, the defendant-mother denied all of the allegations.

The Genesee  trial court conducted a five-day evidentiary hearing on the motion.

“On the first day before testimony was taken, defendant asserted that plaintiff had not satisfied the threshold of showing proper cause or a change of circumstances.

” The trial court indicated that if she filed a written motion on the issue, it would consider it at the end of plaintiff’s proofs.

Defendant never filed the motion, and she never mentioned the issue again.

FINDING OF THE GENESEE TRIAL COURT

The Genesee  trial court found that there was a joint ECE…[ joint established custodial

environment…]with both parties and that there was clear and convincing evidence, upon examination of the statutory “best interest” factors, to modify physical custody and award sole custody to plaintiff.

It never expressly ruled on whether proper cause or a COC were shown.

See MCL 722.23 (best-interest factors); MCL 722.27(1)(c) (established custodial

environment cannot be changed absent “clear and convincing evidence” that the change “is in the

best interest of the child”).

The Michigan Court of Appeals  noted that “there is no error in conducting a single evidentiary hearing” encompassing (1) whether there exists proper cause or a COC […CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES…] as needed to modify custody, (2) a determination of the child’s ECE, bearing on the burden of proof, (3) an examination of the best interest factors, and (4) a ruling on the custody motion.

However, Mitchell indicates that the issue of “proper cause or a change of circumstances must be the first issue reviewed and resolved by the trial court.”

GENESEE COURT COMMITTED ERROR

The Appellate court held that the Genesee  “trial court committed clear legal error in directing defendant to file a motion on the threshold issue, given that the burden was on plaintiff as movant to prove that the threshold was met by the preponderance of the evidence” and that defendant denied the allegations.

Further, regardless of whether defendant failed to preserve her appellate arguments or she completely waived them, the Appellate  court could not affirm – reversal and remand was necessary.

Regardless of whether defendant failed to preserve her appellate arguments or, even

further, completely waived the arguments, The Michigan Court of Appeals  affirm and reversal and remand is

necessary. “In all actions involving dispute of a minor child’s custody, the..[Genesee..] court shall declare the

child’s inherent rights and establish the rights and duties as to the child’s custody, support, and

parenting time in accordance with this act.” MCL 722.24(1) (emphasis added). The Michigan Court of Appeals held  that even if defendant had expressly agreed that there existed proper cause or a change of

circumstances, the trial court was nevertheless required to address the issue at some level and

make a ruling on the record.

SENT BACK TO GENESEE TRIAL COURT

On remand, the Genesee  trial court is to rule on whether there was proper cause or a change of

circumstances. The existing evidentiary record should be sufficient to make the determination,

but the trial court is free to entertain additional proofs if the court deems it necessary. The

Vodvarka decision provides an excellent discussion of what constitutes proper cause and a

change of circumstances and should be utilized by the trial court. Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at

509-514. Should the Genesee  trial court rule that the threshold burden was not satisfied, the Genesee Trial  court shall deny plaintiff’s motion to change custody. Should the Genesee  trial court rule otherwise, defendant, if

desired, can pursue a new appeal relative to the threshold ruling.

[This article is a mix of the e-journal and the Unpublished case with modifications by this author for social media presentation. DO NOT rely on this content without seeking legal counsel.][cya]

-Terry-

_______________________________________________________

TERRY TALKS  CONNECTIONS:

-TERRY TALKS .COM- www.terrytalks.com

-TERRYTALKS on facebook –https://www.facebook.com/groups/528945820527410

-TERRY TALKS Twitter –www.twitter.com/terrybankert

-MICHIGAN FAMILY LAW ADVOCATE –http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/

– BANKRUPTCY AND MICHIGAN FAMILIES – http://dumpmycreditors.wordpress.com/

– TERRY ON YOUR TUBE- https://www.youtube.com/user/TRBANKERT

-TERRY  on FLICKR –http://www.flickr.com/photos/30366181@N05/

_________________________________________________________________