Experience * Integrity * Compassion * Tenacity

AN EXPLANATION OF CUSTODY
When parents with minor children decide to go their separate ways, decisions and arrangements must be made for custody and care of the children. “Custody” in Michigan law is comprised of two elements, physical custody and legal custody. Physical custody means where the children reside and who takes care of them on a day-by-day basis. Legal custody means who has the right and responsibility to make important choices for the children, such as for education, health care, cultural and religious activity, and so forth.

Within the boundaries of this broad framework of custody, a variety of possible arrangements can be set up, depending upon the particular family circumstances. Following is an explanation of how custody matters proceed and definitions of the various forms custody can take.

Defining custody during family dissolution: the issue of custody arises when parents of minor children decide to separate. Some couples cooperate and negotiate for themselves an agreement about custody for the short-term, while the separation or divorce gets settled, and also for the long-term. When the parents cannot agree on a custody plan, a hearing for temporary custody is held by the family court to issue an order that outlines a temporary custody assignment. Temporary custody is often granted to the person who remains in the family home, or who typically has done the majority of day-by-day care of the children. Temporary custody orders very often determine what the permanent custody order will be.

Mediation: if custody or a divorce proceeding is contested, Michigan family court requires the parties to attend mandatory mediation. Mediation is a method the courts use to try to resolve disputes without going to trial. The parties meet with a professional mediator to review and attempt to come to agreement on issues of contention, such as custody arrangements. When a custody plan is agreed upon in mediation, it can include a requirement that future custody or visitation disagreements must be returned to the mediation process.

Custody evaluation: when custody is in dispute, the family court may order a custody evaluation before a custody determination is made. The evaluation will include interviews with the parents, the children, and possibly other knowledgeable witnesses. It can also involve psychological testing of the parents and children. A court-appointed social worker, psychologist or other mental health specialist carries out the evaluation and then makes a recommendation on custody to the court. The evaluation process may take from one to three months.

Modification of custody: after a permanent custody agreement has been reached by the parties or ordered by the court, parents can go back to court to request a change or “modification” in the custody arrangement. In Michigan and the majority of states, to protect the children and parties from the turmoil of continuing court battles and upheaval, the parent asking for a modification must show a significant change in circumstances or “proper cause,” and the request must be made and proceed through the family court in the state where the children live.

Sole custody: sole physical custody means the children will reside primarily with one “custodial” parent. The other is the “non-custodial” parent, who will have a schedule for visitation (also known as parenting time) when the children may stay with that parent, such as on alternate weekends, certain holidays or school breaks, etc. Some families elect for one parent to have sole physical custody while sharing legal (decision-making) custody jointly. One parent would generally only have both sole physical and sole legal custody if the other parent presented some form of harm or danger to the children.

Joint custody: joint physical and legal custody means the parents share the responsibilities for both day-by-day care and living situation of the children, as well as decision-making for the children. Parents must be cooperative with one another and able to perform as a parent team to be able to function well with joint custody.

Bird nest custody: as with baby birds and implied by the name, bird nest custody means the children stay in the pre-separation family home, or in a new family home, and the parents move in and out according to their schedule of visitation. Again, this arrangement, while it can be reassuring and give continuity and a sense of security to the children, requires that the parents collaborate, co-parent and not be at hammer-and-tongs with one another.

Split custody: not used as frequently as other types of custody because it entails separating brothers and sisters, a split custody situation is when each parent has custody of different children.

Making decisions about custody is always going to be very hard for a parent. Inevitably it means giving up some part of time with and rearing of children. The manner in which a custody agreement is reached and the building blocks for the future which are laid in the process are of monumental importance for parents and children. The family law attorneys at Sterling Law Office strongly recommend that parents seek early, experienced legal assistance before tackling custody matters or choices.
Posted by M. Wreford, July 3, 2008

IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT HURTS AND COSTS
Sadly, considering the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows in the United States today, the U.S. Congress has failed to enact comprehensive reform of the country’s immigration laws. Even worse, this spring Congress compounded the untenable immigration law framework by failing to extend an existing program that allowed migrant and seasonal workers to obtain returning-worker visas and thereby travel here legally for their jobs. Additionally, the number of green cards allowed for unskilled or low-skilled workers — hotel workers, farm labor, construction workers to name a few — is limited to an astonishing 5,000 per year for the entire United States.

Because the government has not opened pathways for timely, practicable legal entry into the U.S. for seasonal workers or any others wishing to immigrate, there will continue to be large numbers of people with illegal immigrant status. Likewise, there will be more to come of the aggressive, scattershot and sweeping raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) upon American businesses. According to its government website, www.ice.gov, I.C.E. now has over 100 special operations enforcement teams spread across the county, and in May alone these teams arrested 1,808 undocumented persons in the United States.

Judging by the agency press releases, I.C.E. appears to have ratcheted up its focus on arresting undocumented persons with criminal offenses against children, which is a very commendable effort and certainly could advance the security of the homeland. They have also, however, continued to go after more and more businesses with search warrants and surprise raids, including arresting 60 undocumented workers at 11 taco restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area in May; arresting 400 hourly workers at a poultry processing plant in Batesville, Arkansas in April; and 34 workers at a Heber, California farm-labor contracting company in June.

After I.C.E. raided and detained (inside cattle sheds) some 400 workers at a kosher meat processing business in Iowa last month, those arrested were denied proper due process and rushed through federal hearings set up inside the cattle barns. I.C.E. prosecutors gave the undocumented detainees a Solomon’s choice. Within seven days, they had to choose between: 1) plead guilty to criminal charges, agree to deportation without a hearing to determine options for remaining in the country, and likely receive prison time; or 2) refuse the plea bargain and face tougher charges and punishment ahead.

Pursuing undocumented immigrants whose crime is working without a visa, or being an undocumented spouse or child living in the United States, does nothing to advance homeland security. It does harm to persons and American families who are among the most vulnerable, poor and undefended.

These military actions punish business owners, as well, with fines that can be very onerous, especially for small businesses such as family farms or family-owned restaurants and resorts. If I.C.E. determines that a business has employed unauthorized immigrants, it can impose a first offense civil penalty of not less than $275, not more than $2,200 for each undocumented worker. A second offense shoots the fines up to a minimum $2,200 and maximum $5,500 for each worker; and a third offense raises the cost to the business for each unauthorized employee to $3,300 to $11,000. Business owners and managers can also be prosecuted criminally and be in jeopardy of jail time.

Employers are held responsible not only for workers they hire themselves, but also for undocumented workers supplied to them by labor contractors or employment agencies, and workers paid as independent contractors rather than as employees. Other, additional fines can be levied for each and every incorrectly completed federal form I-9.

If Congress had the courage to develop and implement immigration laws that give family members and workers a means of making the United States their home without having to wait many years or decades or face deportation, it would clearly benefit the immigrants, U.S. businesses, the economy, and the richness of our common culture. Until that occurs, businesses and individuals with questions about immigration law are invited to consult the knowledgeable and experienced immigration lawyers at Sterling Law Office for advice and assistance. For press releases and events supporting immigration law reform, see the website of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, www.aila.org.
Posted by M. Wreford, June 12, 2008

EMPIRE FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS UNTANGLE PATERNITY
Family law and divorce law in Michigan uphold some unique tenets on the matter of paternity and fathers’ rights to their children. Understanding the laws is of utmost importance in the case of both biological children and non-biological children, as well as for children born either within or outside of marriage. Establishing the paternity of a child also can both protect a man’s freedom from responsibility for a child whom he did not conceive, or conversely can protect his rights to a parental relationship with a child he did not conceive.

Usually if a man wishes to secure the rights of a father to a child who is born out of wedlock, he must take action upon the birth of the child to lay the groundwork. He should have his name inscribed on the baby’s birth certificate as the father, if it is possible to do so, sign an acknowledgement of paternity with the Friend of the Court, file an action with the family court to establish paternity, or adopt the child if he is not the biological father. For men who are involved as father-figures with non-biological children (for example, with a child born to a girlfriend and conceived with a different man), it’s crucial to legally establish the relationship in order to protect the right to continue a relationship with the child in the future, even if the mother and the man don’t stay together.

Equally, if a man is being pursued for paternity and financial support for a child born out of wedlock which he did not conceive and with whom he does not have nor desire a relationship, a very fast and painless swab taken from inside the mouth can provide the DNA to defeat such a claim.

For children conceived or born during a marriage, or even within months after a divorce, but who were not conceived by the husband, Michigan family law weighs in heavily on the side of holding that the husband is the recognized and responsible father. Clearly, how this situation gets legally interpreted and enforced can have life-altering consequences for the husband whose wife conceives outside the marriage or for the man who conceives a child with a woman who is or recently was married to another man.

The “equitable parent” doctrine of state law holds that a husband who isn’t the biological father may be considered the father for all legal and parental purposes if the husband and child mutually acknowledge a father-child relationship or if the mother has helped develop such a relationship. The husband can choose to have the same rights to that child as if he were the biological parent and could prevent the biological father from gaining those rights.

On the other hand, a husband with a non-biological child conceived or born during his marriage can be prevented from denying the paternity and all responsibilities for that child by the “equitable estoppel” doctrine of Michigan family law. Thus a husband could end up having to take parental rights over a child who is not his and whose entry into this world was none of his choosing.

Generally speaking, Michigan paternity law has evolved with the priority of protecting the best interests of children. It is complex and multi-faceted, however, and for those facing paternity issues, the assistance and case-specific advice of experienced and savvy family law attorneys like those at Sterling Law Office is of paramount importance. While litigating matters of paternity does cost money, considering what clients potentially could stand to lose or to gain, it is one of the wisest investments that can be made.
Posted by M. Wreford, June 3, 2008

CUT COSTS, SAVE MONEY ON FAMILY LAW CASES
Representation by a quality, skilled attorney costs money. As with your family doctor or neighborhood grocer, your attorney also has to pay monthly professional costs such as insurance, office rent and utilities, wages of staff, bar association fees, and so forth to keep the front door open and the lights on for clients. In a divorce, child support, or custody matter, total costs of litigating a case can range from a couple thousand dollars to the tens of thousands, depending upon an array of variables.

Sterling Law Office family law attorneys pursue client legal goals with the most efficient, minimal cost because we recognize that our clients also have budget limits and financial goals, especially in the current difficult economic times. On the client’s part, there are a number of things that can be done to control and reduce legal fees, and other potential costs of a family law case.

For starters, clients can cut down significantly on background research time on their case by fully completing all information that is requested at the initial consult, usually in the form of an intake questionnaire. Every kernel of information, such as account numbers, pension plans, family member birthdays and Social Security numbers, etc., which the client supplies saves time-and-money consuming phone calls and correspondence by the law office. When you prepare for the first consultation with a family law attorney, compose a file to bring along that includes copies of all family financial, educational, property, demographic and other information which is relevant to your case. Leaving copies of such documents with your attorney will give a serious boost to the “paper chase” for your matter, as well as saving time, paper and postage costs of the law office having to make the copies and return the originals to you.

A letter or e-mail offers an economical means of communicating information and questions to your attorney. Receiving information or questions in writing gives the attorney a chance to digest the information, research any questions, and devise advice before communicating with the client. A written document also can help the client organize thoughts and can be kept in the client file for future reference. This is a much more efficient use of the attorney’s and the client’s time than long, explanatory phone calls. Treat your attorney as your legal advisor, not as a therapist or a friend, and if it is a matter of venting emotion, dealing with psychological problems or getting moral support, turn to family, friends or professional counselors.

Because clients are billed for time the attorney spends on the matter, whenever the client can do his or her own negotiating it saves money. In a divorce or custody matter, for example, if the parties can discuss and come to agreement between themselves on any issues, each item worked out by the parties saves attorney time spent preparing for and dealing with the opposing attorney, the Friend of the Court, and other family court departments. Any item which would make up part of a divorce agreement (such as who keeps specific personal property, who pays insurance costs, division of parenting time and holidays, who pays credit card bills, etc.), will quickly build cost savings if worked out by the partners themselves. Thus, use of the professional negotiating skills of the attorney can be saved for issues on which agreement cannot be reached.

Trying to hold on to the family home, while tempting for many people, may not be a good financial choice in a divorce. Spousal support can help cover mortgage payments, but clients need to look at the total cost of maintaining the property, repairs and upkeep, taxes, and mortgage payments to determine if it really is feasible for one person to afford. Whoever keeps the house will also have to buy out the other spouse’s financial interest in the property.

If spouses make a clean and complete separation of their finances when they part, it protects each from having their credit hurt by payment defaults of the other. For example, if the couple continue to hold credit cards in common, one partner can drive up the debt and seriously hurt the other’s credit score. If one spouse promises in the divorce agreement to pay off certain creditors or a mortgage, then defaults on that promise, the creditor or bank can sue both partners if their names are both still on that asset.

It is very important to understand the different tax treatment of alimony versus child support. Alimony generally is taxed as income to the person receiving it, while child support generally is not taxable. Each type of payment has different rules for how long it will continue, as well, and the circumstances which can increase or decrease payments. The experienced family law attorney, like those at Sterling Law Office, will make certain you thoroughly understand the rules governing these two types of payment.

Finally, to save yourself and your heirs substantial costs in probate, taxes and the distress of conflict over inheritance, every client who completes a divorce must review and revise their estate plan, or create one if they haven’t yet done so. Wills, trusts and beneficiaries can all be impacted by a divorce. To ensure that assets are protected for the intended heirs, and that a client’s final wishes are carried out regarding health care, financial control, and other matters, an up-to-date estate plan is necessary.

By implementing the above cost-savings and planning, Sterling Law Office family law clients can remain on stable, solvent financial ground through the course of a marital dissolution. We help our clients disprove the infamous bumper sticker of a Chicago divorce attorney, which reads “Love is grand, divorce is $40 grand!”
Posted by M. Wreford, April 18, 2008

LOCAL CITIZENS SPUR MSC ELECTION REFORM
On February 19, 2008, just ahead of twelve inches of new snow, twenty-four area residents, including GTLA Bar Association members, returned to Traverse City from a twelve-hour bus trip to Lansing to present to Senator Michelle McManus 1,200 petition signatures. McManus, (R), Lake Leelanau, chairs the Michigan Senate Campaign and Election Oversight Committee. Earlier in the day, the Traverse area delegation had asked the Senator to hold hearings on public financing of Michigan Supreme Court elections and public disclosure of all campaign expenditures.

The petition drive and the bus trip grew out of an event last fall organized by a coalition of citizens, myself among them, concerned about the integrity of the Michigan Supreme Court. “Judicial elections are becoming political prize fights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution,” read the banner quoting retired U. S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner at an October 25, 2007 forum, “Courting Trouble, Threats to a Fair and Independent Michigan Supreme Court.” Guest speakers Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson, Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver addressed the overflow crowd of mostly non-lawyers.

“How many of you have been a party to a case before the Michigan Supreme Court?” Mr. Dickerson asked. No one raised a hand. However, after hearing about court decisions affecting a range of subjects from no fault auto insurance to the environment, attendees concluded that each of them had indeed been involved in one form or another and that there exists the appearance that justices deciding these cases may have been answering to their campaign contributors instead of to the law.

$23 million has been spent since 2000 to elect Michigan Supreme Court justices. Nearly half of that sum has gone into unidentified, unreported candidate-focused issue ads disparaging the other candidate. After what some call “justice for sale,” 86% of cases before the MSC involve a campaign contributor as a party. Public financing, full disclosure of campaign funding, and an improved system for conflict of interest recusals are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Supreme Court Justice Weaver is also calling for Senate confirmation of Supreme Court appointments and one eight-year term.

To take action on our concerns and to build on the energy created by the forum, the forum organizing coalition established the Michigan Independent Supreme Court Campaign (MISCC). Volunteers from MISCC coordinated the petition drive and arranged the bus trip to deliver the results. From the efforts begun in Traverse City, grass roots groups in other areas of Michigan are planning similar educational events. Senator McManus pledged to move forward on the issue, but the results remain to be seen. While the delegation was at the Capitol, House Democrats did introduce a new judicial candidate public financing bill to join a Senate version already on the table. The efforts may eventually restore public confidence in the Court but it is too late to stop the ugly process for 2008.

While the public is distracted by the upcoming presidential election, special interests will be as focused on this year’s most expensive judicial race in Michigan history. Incumbent Republican Clifford Taylor is expected to wage a high stakes battle against a candidate chosen by the Democratic Party. While the ballot will not indicate their parties’ sponsorship, it will designate Justice Taylor as the incumbent. Always an advantage in the past, in this election year, the incumbency designation could remain an unfair advantage or become a liability, depending on the perception of the electorate and its disgust for the secretly-sponsored offensive campaign that is expected. Visit www.miscc.org for more information.
Posted by Lea Ann Sterling, Esq., April 1, 2008

Lea Ann Sterling received her J.D. from The Ohio State University College of Law in 1980 and got to Michigan as soon as she could where she established Sterling Law Office in Empire. Her practice with associate attorney Wendy K. Bailey includes Family Law, Social Security Disability, and Personal Injury. Sterling Law Office appears to be the only firm north of Grand Rapids specializing in Immigration Law where they counsel businesses on worksite compliance and assist families with this complex area. Lea Ann is married to Lanny Sterling and has three children. Among other activities leading some to call her a “renaissance woman,” Lea Ann enjoys writing about history and is the author of Historic Homes of Olde Towne and Historic Cottages of Mackinac Island. She appeared as an expert on the 1788 settlement of Marietta, Ohio in the 2003 documentary “Opening the Door West.” Googling “Lea Ann Sterling” would lead you to believe the name applies to at least five different people, but it’s all her. In addition to GTLA Bar, she is also a member of the Michigan Association for Justice and the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

ENTERING CANADA GETS HARDER FOR U.S. CITIZENS
Are you planning a business trip, semester abroad or vacation to Canada? If you want to visit, say, Vancouver, Montreal, Niagara Falls, Stratford-upon-Avon, Toronto or any other destination within our northern neighbor’s borders, make sure you have no criminal or operating-under-the-influence convictions in your past. Since 2003, more than 18,000 U.S. citizens have been refused entry at the Canadian border because of such convictions. It doesn’t matter if the conviction was 10 or 20 years ago. If it’s recorded on State Police or FBI databases then Canadian border officers can find it. Any such conviction is grounds to deny entry to Canada.

Immigration lawyers report a recent stepped-up number of individuals who have been refused entry for past convictions. The elevated scrutiny and law-enforcement activity at the borders comes as more and more personal and historical information on individuals becomes available on the internet through initiatives and databases brought into play by the Department of Homeland Security.

Not every person who attempts a border crossing gets this type of background check performed upon them, but every person is a potential target. Border guards select individuals at their discretion for such checks and can do so at any time to anyone. Being subjected to a background check may be determined by arbitrary and unpredictable criteria such as demeanor, apparent race and ethnicity, age, sex, or sometimes perhaps just the officer’s gut instinct or current mood. Tourists, new hires for Canadian jobs, students, would-be gamblers, professional athletes, truckers, and professionals en route to educational meetings are among the many classes of people who’ve been caught in the web of heightened border security and turned back.

To avoid the disappointment (and humiliation) of not being allowed to cross Canada’s border, those with a past conviction can take one of several steps to ensure this won’t happen. If the criminal conviction is a misdemeanor, was resolved over 5 years ago, and if it is the only criminal conviction the person has ever had, then he or she may be eligible to have the conviction expunged from their record. Once it has been expunged, the conviction will not show up in background checks.

Expungement is not allowed for some types of criminal convictions, such as for sexual offenses and felonies which can be punished by a life sentence. Expungement also is not allowed for criminal driving offenses, such as operating-under-the-influence, driving without a license, etc.

Individuals with non-expungable convictions do have some other options available to them. One alternative is to apply for a temporary resident permit, at a fee of $100. The application form for this permit can be obtained at border crossing stations, but generally needs to be done in advance of an attempted crossing, as the permit is not usually granted on the spot. It is good for one visit only. Another means of getting permanent border-crossing approval for people with past convictions is to apply, with the help of a Canadian attorney, for a “rehabilitation certificate.”

Sterling Law Office immigration attorneys will assist clients in expungement of eligible criminal convictions, completing temporary Canadian resident applications, and identifying attorneys in Canada experienced with Canadian immigration law and procedures. In an era of police and government access to virtually everything there is to know about individual citizens, mistakes of the past can bring additional punishment in the present. Sterling Law office advocacy helps prevent that.
Sterling Law attorneys are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Posted by M. Wreford, March 6, 2008