green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
11.9 score
“only when the parents share joint physical custody and the proposed change of domicile would also constitute a change in the child's established custodial environment is it also necessary to evaluate whether the change of domicile would be in the child's best interest.”
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re K Malilwe-Economy Minor
to maintain an appeal, a person must ordinarily be 'aggrieved' by the lower court's decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Katherine Lynn McCoury v. Joshua Steven McCoury
he family court cannot accept a stipulation of the parents in child custody matters, and must independently determine what is in the best interests of the child.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gagnon v. Glowacki
only when the parents share joint physical custody and the proposed change of domicile would also constitute a change in the child's established custodial environment is it also necessary to evaluate whether the change of domicile would be in the child's best interest.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eric A. BRAVERMAN, Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Patricia Swann, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, a/k/a Garden City Hospital, Osteopathic, Defendant, and John R. Schairer, D.O., Gary Yashinsky, M.D., Abhina V. Raina, M.D., and Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
v.
GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, a/k/a Garden City Hospital, Osteopathic, Defendant, and John R. Schairer, D.O., Gary Yashinsky, M.D., Abhina V. Raina, M.D., and Providence Hospital and Medical Centers, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Published
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (3)
On order of the Court, the motion to correct the case caption and dismiss Docket No. 134446 is considered, and it is DENIED. The motion to strike the appellants' brief is also DENIED because this Court's September 26, 2007 order granting leave to appeal only directed the parties to "include among the issues to be briefed" the issues specified in the order; there is nothing improper in parties endeavoring to bring recent decisions to the Court's attention. The motion to strike the appellants' appendix is also DENIED because MCR 7.307(A) does not specify a penalty for noncompliance, and the Court is not persuaded that appellants' appendix is defective. The motion to add issue is DENIED.