|
In order to maintain client
confidentiality, I have only summarized
cases which were submitted to the Court
or Appeals. All information contained in
the summaries are a matter of public
record.
Muller vs. Muller-Court of Appeals
Docket No: 259271 (2005)
No unrelated members of opposite sex
overnight during parenting time.
I represented the mother of two girls,
ages 4 and 6. Mother objected to her ex
husband allowing his girlfriend to spend
the night when he had parenting time
with the girls on alternate weekends. I
filed a Motion to Modify Parenting Time
to prohibit any member of the opposite
sex to be in the home overnight during
parenting time. The Trial Court ordered
a mutual restraint that neither party
have an unrelated person of the opposite
sex overnight during parenting. An
Evidentiary Hearing was held, Mother,
Father and girlfriend testified. Father
had bragged about his new relationship
and sexual exploits extensively on
various internet sites. He had posted an
erotic photo of the girlfriend. The
mother testified that she was not
comfortable with his new found sexual
bravado and lack of concern of what was
best for the children. Fathers’
girlfriend testified that although she
had been previously married to the
father of her daughter, age 6, she now
objected to marriage on moral grounds.
Father admitted that unmarried
cohabitation is not necessarily a good
example for his daughters.
The trial court concluded that it was in
the best interest of the minor children
that there be no unrelated member of the
opposite sex overnight while exercising
parenting time. Father appealed to the
Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling
continuing the prohibition on any
unrelated member of the opposite sex
spending the night during parenting
time. A copy of the Court of Appeals
decision can be accessed at:
Muller vs. Muller
Ellehaf vs. Tarraf
A marriage under Muslim law is not
recognized by the Court
Michigan Court of Appeals March 23, 2006
In this case I represented the father.
The parties had twin sons. They had a
religious ceremony under Muslim law to
formalize their relationship. The mother
filed a motion claiming that the
“marriage” under Muslim law should be
recognized by the Court and entitle her
to one-half of the father’s property and
to spousal support. I was able to
successfully argue to the trial court
that the State of Michigan does not
recognize Muslim law as a grounds for a
legally valid marriage.
The Defendant appealed to the Court of
Appeals and the issue was briefed and
argued. The Court of Appeals held that
the requirements for a legal marriage
are strictly statutory. They held that a
relationship that does not meet the
statutory requirements for a legal
marriage does not give rise to property
rights, personal rights, or rights to
support.
Further, the court noted that the
Defendant had acted inconsistent with
her claim that she was validly married
to the father. She had applied for
Social Security Benefits which required
her to verify that she did not live with
anyone other than her sons. She also
represented to police officers in a
police report unrelated to this matter
that she was the father’s girlfriend,
not his wife. She also filed Federal
income tax returns as “Head of
Household” not as a married person.
Finally, she stated on the Affidavit of
Parentage for the two children she had
with Plaintiff that she was not married.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial
court’s decision to deny Defendant any
rights to fathers’ property and to deny
her spousal support. A copy of the Court
of Appeals decision is at:
Ellehaf vs. Tarraf
Moslimani vs. Moslimani, Court of
Appeals Docket No. 296487 (2010)
Award of sole physical cusotdy and legal
custody to Mother upheld
I successfully defended the trial
court’s award of sole custody of the
parties’ two children to Mother. Father
was physically and verbally abusive in
front of the children. He was
controlling and falsely accused her of
having extra-marital affairs. Father was
diagnosed with Lymphoma and was
hospitalized three times during the
case. He had chemotherapy and claimed to
be totally cured. The trial lasted nine
(9) days. The Trial Court found in
mother’s favor under several factors
used to evaluate the best interest of
the children. Father appealed. I read
the transcripts of the trial, prepared
an Appellate Brief and argued the case
before the Court of Appeals. The Trial
Court’s decision was affirmed. A copy of
the Court of Appeals decision is at:
Moslimani vs. Moslimani
Chappell vs. Raffaelle, Court of
Appeals Docket No./ 134365 (1990)
Physical custody to Fahter affirmed
I successfully represented father in
maintaining physical custody of his two
sons. Mother had remarried a doctor and
had substantial resources. The court
appointed psychologist and the Friend of
the Court both recommended that custody
be changed from Father to Mother. A
lengthy trial was held. The trial court
ruled that Mother did not meet the
burden of proof by clear and convincing
evidence that custody should be changed.
Mother appealed. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
|
