|
No. 136310
| Robert Hunter and Lorie Hunter, |
|
Scott G. Bassett |
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Hallmark, L.) |
|
|
| Tammy Jo Hunter, |
|
Saraphoena B. Koffron |
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Jeffrey Hunter, |
|
|
Defendant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant's Brief on Appeal>> (not yet available)
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
California Women's Law Center, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, Northwest
Women's Law Center, and the Women's Law Project's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Center for Effective Discipline, End Physical Punishment of Children (EPOCH-USA), and the
National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment in Schools' (NCACPS) Amici Curiae Brief>>
Majority of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
In 2002, after becoming addicted to crack cocaine, Jeffrey and Tammy Jo Hunter consented to a limited guardianship of their four children by Robert and Lorie Hunter, Jeffrey Hunter’s brother and sister-in-law. In 2003, the biological parents asked the court to terminate the limited guardianship, but the court denied the couple’s request because they were again using drugs. The court appointed Robert and Lorie Hunter co-guardians of the children. The biological mother, who was imprisoned in 2004, sought visitation with her children after being released in 2005. The court granted her parenting time, eventually allowing her to have unsupervised visitation with the children. In May 2006, Robert and Lorie Hunter sued the biological parents, seeking custody of the children. The parties stipulated that the family court referee would make a preliminary finding regarding the children’s established custodial environment and the biological mother’s fitness as a parent, using Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 206 (2005). The referee found that the children’s established custodial environment was with the plaintiffs and that the biological mother was an unfit parent. The trial court agreed with the referee’s findings, determined that it was in the best interests of the children for them to remain with the plaintiffs, and granted legal and physical custody to the plaintiffs. The court also ordered the biological mother to pay child support and $4,000 of the plaintiffs’ attorney fees. In a split, unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the custody determination, but reversed the award of attorney fees. The dissenting judge on the panel would also have reversed the custody determination, concluding that the trial court’s decision regarding the biological mother’s parental fitness was unconstitutional and against the great weight of the evidence. The dissenting judge said she would have remanded the case to the trial court for a finding that would take into proper consideration the biological mother’s fundamental liberty interest in rearing her children. The biological mother appeals.
Top of Page
|
