Michigan Abolishes Dower

As of April 7, 2017, wives in Michigan will no longer have dower rights. If you want to know all about dower rights, read my previous post about dower. Briefly, dower gives wives some rights to any real estate owned by her husband during the marriage.

What this new change means is that wives may no longer need to sign deeds when their husband sells property that is only in his name. This also removes dower as one option for wives during a divorce property settlement, or for widows when dealing with the estates of deceased husbands. Dower will still exist in cases where a husband passes before April 7, or where the ex-wife/widow has already taken advantage of her dower rights.

Most states abolished dower long ago. Michigan is doing it now as part of a set of new laws to deal with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Dower was only available to a wife in a marriage.

There will be other changes in family law because of same-sex marriage which I will be covering in future posts.

"Temporary" custody is not temporary: Why you need a lawyer.

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals case, Bolz v. Bolz, shows why it is so important that you have the help of an attorney when it comes to life-affecting legal matters. In this case, a mother was given "sole legal and physical custody" of the couple's children in the divorce, "until the [father] has completed his substance abuse program and has been sober for one year."

To the father, and even to the trial court judge, this apparently meant that once the father was sober for a year, and through the program, that he would have joint custody of the children, or at least be able to get joint custody just by showing that he had completed the requirements. But, in Michigan, there is no such thing as "temporary" custody. Custody is either sole, or joint. 

A parent can always go to court and try to convince a judge that there is some good reason for changing custody, but custody doesn't automatically change, despite what you may think the order says. The father probably thought he had won some benefit, where he would get joint custody when he completed the substance abuse program. But what he really got was worse than the default of "sole custody" to the mother. What the divorce judgment really meant was that until he was sober for a year, the court wouldn't even consider changing custody.

Having your insobriety clearly written out in a divorce judgment is probably not going to help you in the future with getting custody back, and divorce judgments are public records. Anyone in the future will be able to look this up and see that this father had some serious problems. (And now that it's gone to the Court of Appeals, that fact has been even more publicized.)

So, please remember, just because something looks like it means one thing, the legal meaning can be quite different. In this case, having sole legal custody also means that the mother will probably be able to move the children out of the state, and the father will probably have very few chances to see his children. I am guessing that this is not the outcome he expected when they first signed the divorce papers.

Vaccines are in a child's best interests, according to Michigan Court of Appeals

Divorced or separated parents often disagree about how to raise their children. In most cases it is just about preferences, for food, clothing, discipline, schooling. But when it comes to medical decisions, those disagreements can have serious consequences. After a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Kagen v. Kagen, it seems likely that Michigan courts will usually consider vaccinations to be in a child's best interests.

In that case, the court decided that the evidence presented by the father, who was in favor of vaccinating the couple's child, was admissible and outweighed the evidence provided by the mother, who opposed vaccination. I think this best sums up the court's decision: "A review of the parties’ evidence clearly supports that vaccination of children is in their best interests, unless the child’s medical condition contraindicates vaccination. The reports generated after public-agency research and investigation, including those presented by Mrs. Kagen, establish that the benefits associated with vaccination far outweigh any dangers."

In Michigan family law, what the court sees as a child's best interest can have serious consequences. In divorces, custody disputes, parenting time arrangements, change of residence, adoptions, and paternity determinations, a child's best interests, according to the court, will often decide the outcome of the case. And for each type of case mentioned, the way courts decide on the best interest vary.

In situations where a parent does not trust in alternative forms of medicine used by the other parent, they should be able to use this case to try to get the court to order the use of mainstream medicine. Divorced or separated parents who want to use homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, or anthroposiphic medicine for their child should be aware that this could possibly be used against them in a future custody dispute.

Whichever side you're on when it comes to these forms of medicine, it is important that you understand your rights and how they could apply to the best interests of your child. Even if you don't foresee a court case soon, talking with an attorney now can ease your mind, and help smooth out any future disputes.