Has the husband committed enough fault?

WHAT COULD BE WORSE FOR MR. NODINE? DIVORCE SERVED, DRUG INDICTED , POLITICALLY IMPEACHED AND NAMED ONLY MURDER SUSPECT! BUT HE HAS A FRIEND NAMED “HOSS”.

Terry Bankert a Flint Divorce Lawyer , Http://attorneybankert.com observes it was a bad day for Alabama Mobile County Commissioner Stephen Nodine . Most of us working stiffs , including a divorce attorney,think our world has ended and nobody has it worse than us when we are served divorce papers papers.

IF YOU THOUGHT THE DAY YOU WERE SERVED WITH DIVORCE PAPERS WAS BAD ASK MR. NODINE
!　
SERVED INDICTED IMPEACHED AND NAMED ONLY MURDER SUSPECT
On one Friday he was served divorce papers indicted Friday by a Mobile County Grand Jury on drug charges, impeached and named the only suspect in the murder of his mistress, Angel Downs[see1]
MICHIGAN IS A NO FAULT DIVORCE STATE
To end a valid marriage, there must be a judgment of divorce. In a divorce complaint, the only allegation of the grounds for divorce the statute permits is the no-fault ground, i.e., “there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.” MCL 552.6(1). If the statutory standard is met, the court must enter a judgment of divorce; thus, one party will invariably be able to obtain the divorce even if the other party objects. Grotelueschen v Grotelueschen, 113 Mich App 395, 318 NW2d 227 (1982) (if either party is unwilling to live with the other, the objects of matrimony have been destroyed); Kretzschmar v Kretzschmar, 48 Mich App 279, 210 NW2d 352 (1973) (one party’s assertion of the mere possibility that the marriage can be preserved is not sufficient grounds to deny the divorce). [3]
　
WIFE THINKS THERE MAY BE IRRECONCILEABLE DIFFERENCES
In the divorce papers filed Friday, Kimberlee Nodine cites an "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" and says any attempts to reconcile would be futile.[1] Do ya think.
WHAT WILL SHE GET WHEN HES IN JAIL?She's seeking custody of their son, $971 per month in child support and $2,500 per month in alimony. Mrs. Nodine also wants to keep the couples house and her 2005 Honda Pilot, but wants Steve to pay the mortgage and car payment. She also wants Steve's pension from Mobile County.[1]
CHILD CUSTODY IN MICHIGAN
A court cannot enter a new custody order or amend an existing order without first determining if there is an established custodial environment. MCL 722.27(1)(c). Whether an established custodial environment exists is a preliminary and essential determination. Ireland v Smith, 214 Mich App 235, 542 NW2d 344 (1995), aff’d, 451 Mich 457, 547 NW2d 686 (1996). The trial court must make clear findings on this issue before deciding custody. Stringer v Vincent, 161 Mich App 429, 411 NW2d 474 (1987). This includes a request for sole custody when the initial order was for joint custody. See Duperon v Duperon, 175 Mich App 77, 437 NW2d 318 (1989); Nielsen v Nielsen, 163 Mich App 430, 415 NW2d 6 (1987). [3]
Once the trial court makes findings on the record on whether an established custodial environment exists and determines the appropriate burden of proof, it must then apply that burden to the best interests factors. Underwood v Underwood, 163 Mich App 383, 414 NW2d 171 (1987).
The best interests of the child are the controlling consideration in custody disputes between parents, between agencies, and between third persons. MCL 722.27a. The best interests factors are set forth at MCL 722.23 (see §3.8). Before granting primary physical custody to a party in a custody determination, the trial court must consider each of the statutory factors and make specific findings on the record. Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 512 NW2d 851 (1994); Schubring v Schubring, 190 Mich App 468, 476 NW2d 434 (1991); Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 395 NW2d 65 (1986).
The best interests of the child means the sum total of the following 12 factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.
(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.
(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. MCL 722.23
　
　
CHILD SUPPORT IN MICHIGAN
Under the SPTEA, support means the court-ordered payment of money for a child, including payment of the medical, dental, and other health care expenses; child care expenses; and educational expenses. MCL 552.602(ee)(i).
According to 2008 MCSF 3.04, every support order must set a family annual ordinary health care expense amount to cover uninsured costs, premiums, and copays for children.
For purposes of setting the support obligation, it is presumed that a specified dollar amount per child per year ($345 in 2008 manual) will be spent on ordinary expenses. This annual amount is apportioned according to the parents’ income, and the payer’s share is paid as part of the regular support payment. The payee must incur this minimum threshold amount before seeking reimbursement for health care expenses from the payer.
However, the payer may seek to have the payee pay his or her apportioned amount of any health care expenses, regardless of whether the threshold amount has been satisfied. Amounts may be added to compensate for other known or predictable expenses, such as orthodontia or special medical needs. Uninsured health care expenses that exceed the ordinary health care expense amount are extraordinary expenses, which are apportioned between the parents based on the medical percentages set in the support order.
　
SPOUSAL SUPPORT IN MICHIGAN
A spousal support award must be just and reasonable under the circumstances of the individual case. MCL 552.23; see Maake v Maake, 200 Mich App 184, 187, 503 NW2d 664 (1993).
Relevant factors in determining whether spousal support should be awarded include the following:
the past relations and the conduct of the parties
the length of the marriage
the ability of the parties to work
the source of and amount of property awarded to the parties
the ages of the parties
the ability of the parties to pay spousal support
the present situation of the parties
the needs of the parties
the health of the parties
the prior standard of living of the parties
whether either party is responsible for the support of others
general principles of equity
Parrish v Parrish, 138 Mich App 546, 554, 361 NW2d 366 (1984).
The court must make findings on each factor that is relevant to the claim before it. Sparks v Sparks, 440 Mich 141, 159, 485 NW2d 893 (1992).
　
ALABAMA SHERIFF “HOSS” SPEAKS OUT
Baldwin County Sheriff Huey "Hoss" Mack said that while Nodine is the only suspect in the Downs [ THE GIRL FRIEND]case at present, that does not mean that there's enough evidence for an arrest. "Just because you're a suspect doesn't mean that you did it," Mack said. [2]
I AM MOST AMAZED THAT MOBILE ALABAMA COUNTY HAS A REAL SHERIFF CALLED “HOSS”
Posted here by
Terry r. Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com
　
　
[1]
http://www.wkrg.com/alabama/article/steve-nodines-wife-files-for-divorce/887557/May-17-2010_5-41-pm/
[2]
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/impeachment_trial_of_stephen_n.html
[3]
Michigan Family Law Bench Book

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, NAS, MICH APP AND JUSTICE

Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert discusses Domestic Issues that Could be found in Genesee County Family Court or Your Court:

DID YOU KNOW :... Arrearages and Civil Contempt A system in which child support awards are commonly set beyond the parent's ability to pay, modification procedures are neither realistically available nor likely to address inequities, and retroactive correction is disallowed, inevitably results in the accrual by many parents of large and unpayable arrearages. [3]

DID YOU KNOW… in contempt, the low-income obligor is rarely a candidate for civil incarceration because of the likelihood that he or she is unable to pay the hefty sum represented by the accumulated arrearages, or even a portion thereof that may be set by the court as the purge amount. [3]

DID YOU KNOW... Indigents are especially unlikely to appeal civil contempt orders, given their lack of access to appellate counsel in most states and the brevity of the typical contempt sentence.[3]

DID YOU KNOW ... In civil contempt proceedings, unlike those for criminal contempt, absence of willfulness is treated as a defense, and the initial burden is on the contemnor to plead and present evidence of his or her inability to comply with the order. ... [3]

IF CONTEMPT OF COURT WITH POSSIBLE JAIL CAN FACE A CELEBRITY IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU.Born Nasir Jones Rapper Nas was cleared of a civil contempt charge on Monday in connection with his divorce from Kelis. According to a statement from his spokesperson released on Wednesday, "The contempt charges that were filed against Nas earlier this year in conjunction with his ongoing custody battle were thrown out yesterday by Judge David Cunningham III presiding over the case. [4]

Nas has paid all of the child support owed in full. His legal counsel today also settled on additional undisclosed financial terms, which included attorneys' fees and spousal support." The contempt charges were dismissed after Nas paid nearly $50,000 in child support to estranged wife Kelis,[4]

ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE ARTICLE BELOW: Conviction for failing to pay child support (MCL 750.165); Exclusion of evidence the defendant was unable to pay the court-ordered child support; People v. Adams; Due process; City of Port Huron v. Jenkinson; Whether defendant was entitled to a new trial on the basis her rights under Michigan's Due Process Clause were denied by the trial court's order prohibiting her from presenting inability to pay as a defense; Constitutionality of MCL 750.165; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Mack; Impermissible collateral attack on the underlying support order; People v. Howard; MCL 600.1021; The Support & Parenting Time Enforcement Act (MCL 552.601-.650); MCL 552.16(1); MCL 552.605; MCL 552.603(2); MCR 3.205(C); The actus reus element of the crime; People v. Monaco; Right to present a defense; People v. Kurr; People v. Hayes; People v. Hackett; Relevant evidence (MRE 401); Prosecutorial misconduct; People v. Dobek; People v. Unger; People v. Thomas; People v. Rodriguez; People v. McLaughlin; People v. Watson; "Plain error" review; People v. Brown[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished 4/20/2010)Case Name: People v. (L), No. 290218, Oakland County Circuit Court, LC No. 2008-220669-FHe-Journal Number: 45583Judge(s): Per Curiam - Fitzgerald, Cavanagh, and Davis Concluding the defendant's reliance on Jenkinson was misplaced because unlike the defendant in Jenkinson, she was prosecuted for failing to comply with a court order entered after a judicial determination was made she had the financial means to comply with the court order, the court rejected her claim MCL 750.165 was unconstitutional and affirmed her conviction for failing to pay child support.

MOTHER IN FAMILY COURT WAS ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT HERE IN CIRCUIT COURT SHE IS BEING PUNISHED FOR NOT PAYINGMother who is the Defendant was ordered to pay her ex-husband (E) child support after their divorce because he was awarded custody of their three minor children. The child support was initially set at $54 a month. Later, husband sought an increase after he learned mother had purchased a home worth about $500,000 by securing 2 mortgages in her name, for $2,000 a month and $1,000 a month, respectively. She also purchased a new vehicle. After hearings on the matter, the FOC recommended income of $5,000 a month be imputed to defendant consistent with her standard of living and her child support obligation be increased to $1,131 a month, retroactive to June 1, 2005. [1]The Oakland County Circuit Court trial court in the child support case adopted the recommendation after holding a hearing. [1]Mothers payment history was very sporadic. She paid nothing in 2006 and $488.85 in 2007. The amount of arrearage as of February 29, 2008 was $40,182.71. [1]

FELONY NON SUPPORTFelony charges for failure to pay child support were filed against her in March 2008. The trial court granted the prosecution's motion in limine to prevent defendant MOTHER from offering any evidence related to her alleged inability to pay the ordered child support. [1]

THE FOC ASSUMED THE ABILITY TO PAYOn appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, she was entitled to a new trial because her rights under Michigan's Due Process Clause were denied by the OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT trial court's order prohibiting her from presenting her inability to pay as a defense. [1]

THE FAMILY COURT SAID SHE COULD PAY IT SHE SHOULD HAVE APPEALED THEREThe court disagreed, concluding unlike the defendant in Jenkinson, the duty imposed on defendant was adjudged possible for her to perform. She was a party to civil proceedings involving the modification of her child support obligation, which gave her ample opportunity to present evidence of her ability or inability to pay an increased amount of child support. [1]

THE FAMILY COURT SAID WITH THESE BILLS YOU CAN PAY MORE SUPPORT.In accordance with the evidence of her standard of living, she was adjudged capable of paying $1,131 in child support a month. "Thus, unlike the defendant in Jenkinson, the State did not impose upon her a duty that was impossible for her to perform." [1]

YOU HAVE TO APPEAL A COURT ORDER IN THE COURT THAT MADE THE ORDER NOT ANOTHER EQUAL OR LESSER COURT.The court concluded her argument was actually an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying support order. Affirmed. [1]Here, defendant was prosecuted for the criminal offense of violating MCL 750.165 whichstates, in pertinent part:(1) If the court orders an individual to pay support for the individual’sformer or current spouse, or for a child of the individual, and the individual doesnot pay the support in the amount or at the time stated in the order, the individualis guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by afine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.[1]On September 29, 2008, the prosecution filed a motion in limine seeking to preventdefendant from offering any evidence pertaining to her alleged inability to pay the ordered child support. The prosecution argued that, as this Court held in People v Adams, 262 Mich App 89; 683 NW2d 729 (2004), the failure to pay child support in violation of MCL 750.165 is a strict liability offense; thus, evidence of an alleged inability to pay is immaterial and irrelevant. The trial court agreed and granted the motion in limine, holding that “inability to pay is not a defense. Something should have been raised earlier for a modification, but it wasn’t.” A jury trial began on November 14, 2008, and defendant was convicted as charged.[1]

HIGHLIGHT: Each day in the United States thousands of persons are jailed on charges arising from failure to pay court-ordered child support. Some of them have been convicted of contempt of court, a crime based on willful defiance of the court order. However, most are incarcerated pursuant to the court's civil authority to jail contemnors as a means of coercing compliance with the order. In the case of the civil contemnor, confinement generally occurs without the procedural protections that are available as a matter of right in criminal proceedings. A finding of ability to pay the ordered support is a necessary precedent to both a finding of contempt and the penalty of coercive incarceration. Otherwise, the incarceration can only be characterized as punishment for being poor. Yet many incarcerated child support obligors are indigent, with irregular employment, limited earning potential, no real assets, and questionable ability to pay. A variety of systemic and judicial flaws have coalesced to create a fertile environment for unjustified incarcerations. Prominent among these are serious deficiencies in current civil contempt practice. Restoration of equity and due process to this area will require an array of adjustments in federal and state law, agency practice, and judicial process.[3]

Posted here byTerry Bankerthttp://www.attorneybankert.com/

see

[1]Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished 4/20/2010),Case Name: People v. (L), No. 290218, Oakland County Circuit Court, LC No. 2008-220669-FH,e-Journal Number: 45583,Judge(s): Per Curiam - Fitzgerald, Cavanagh, and Davis

[2] HEADLINES and cited comments by Terry Bankert A Michigan Attorney www.attorneybankert.com

[3]NAME: Elizabeth G. Patterson*BIO: * Professor, University of South Carolina School of Law. Professor Patterson was Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services from 1999 through 2003.18 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 95

[4]http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1637082/20100415/nas.jhtml