Grounds for Divorce: Michigan's grounds for divorce are not based on fault (such as desertion, adultery, cruelty etc.). We are called a "no-fault" state. Either the husband or the wife can say to the Judge that the marriage has broken down and can't be fixed or reconciled and this will be enough for the Judge to say that he or she is entitled to a divorce. In fact, most Judges won't even listen to any more than that when the issue is whether or not a divorce will be granted. (They will, however, listen to fault on other matters such as custody, property division or alimony).

Custody: In deciding custody disputes, Michigan Judges MUST consider a list of issues which our law says determines the "best interests of the child(ren)". These issues, which are set out in the law, are:

a. the strong love, affection and other emotional ties between each parent and the child.

b. the capacity and disposition of each parent to give love, affection and guidance to the child and the ability to educate and raise the child in its religion or creed.

c. capacity of each parent to provide food, clothing and medical care, based on the parent's history in providing them.

d. ability of each parent to provide a stable and satisfactory living environment.

e. the permanence of the proposed family home.

f. the moral fitness of each party.

g. the mental and physical health of each party.

h. the home, school and community record of the child.

i. the reasonable preference of the child (if the court feels the child is old enough).

j. the willingness of each parent to facilitate a close relationship with the other party.

k. domestic violence.

l. Any other factor the court feels is important.

These issues are very important. When preparing a custody case, a lawyer should build his case around them. Other important points can be included in issue "l" when you think the court may think it is important. Although it is not stated in the issues set forth above, it is most important that, at the end of the day, the court is left with a strong feeling that you are the better person to raise the child. Child support is figured on a formula which is largely income driven. It can be figured on a computer program and it takes a substantial amount of persuasion to get the Judge to move off it. If he does award child support which is higher or lower than the guidelines, he is required by law to make specific findings of why the interest of justice is better served by deviating from the support guidelines.

Property Division: Property division starts with the unwritten premise that the property accumulated during the marriage should be equally divided. A Judge has jurisdiction over property not accumulated during the marriage, and he will bring it into the mix if he feels the interests of justice would be served. In property division, the Judge has a considerable amount of latitude to divide the property as he feels is fair. He may, when dividing property, consider fault, earning ability of each litigant, valuation of the property and a host of other considerations. In fact, dividing property is an art and an attorney needs to be creative when he tries to persuade the Judge what he should do. One example: Should Mom, who is awarded custody, be able to retain the home until the youngest child is 18 years old before the property is sold and the proceeds divided? If the Judge lets her do that, she then has the use of Dad's half of the home investment for perhaps 10 years. Regardless of whether he represents Mom or Dad, an attorney designing a property award needs to be alert and know what he is doing.

Alimony: In Michigan, this is now referred to as Spousal Support. Unless a marriage has some length to it, alimony is not awarded very often. It can, however, be a useful tool in designing a property settlement or awarding money to an abused or wronged spouse. In marriages of some length it is used to allow a spouse to maintain the standard of living he or she has become accustomed to when the other person has greater earning power. As in child support, there is a computer based guideline, but it is given substantially less weight than in a child support dispute.

Custody of children: Most people put their children first – as they should. Their lawyer should do the same. No one ever wins a custody dispute. Unless there is a reconciliation between the parents, the children are going to grow up in separate homes, with separate rules and in all likelihood some bitterness between their Mom and Dad. First and foremost the lawyer must address what is best for the children. The job of the lawyer is to work with his client and his opponent to find a solution within the scope of the statute which outlings the children's "best interests". I do not at all imply that the best interests of the client are not considered. Far from it. The best interests of the client are served when the children come first.

Marital agreements: The purpose of a marital agreement is not to make a divorce settlement easier if things go wrong. Some of the reasons for the agreement are to facilitate and take fear out of what might happen if things begin to get rocky in the marriage, a spouse dies prematurely, or if adult children of the other spouse appear to be exerting undue influence on one's partner. There are many other reasons. The point is that a marital agreement should be drafted with the preservation of a happy and successful marriage as its goal. And, if unfortunately things do go sour, it can make the breakup more harmonious and less damaging to people involved.

Alternative dispute resolution: Over the past few years, resolution of family problems through mediation, arbitration or conciliation (or whatever one wishes to call it) has become used more frequently. This gets the disagreements out of the courtroom where the procedures are geared to the very formal adversary system and into an arena where people are encouraged to come and reason together. Often what is good for one party is not necessarily bad for the other. If people can agree on a compromise it is usually, but not always better than a Judge deciding that issue when he first hears it in a courtroom. He is not as close to the issues as the people and their attorneys are and may very well decide the matter with a meat cleaver approach when a careful weighing of the matter by people close to the issues may produce far better results. Nevertheless, if the opposition is bitter and uncooperative, the attorney must be prepared to demand that the Judge, who has the necessary power, be available to do justice.