Foskett v. Foskett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing the Legislature’s intent in enacting the Child Custody Act was to prevent the removal of children from established custodial environments “ ‘except in the most compelling cases,’ ” quoting Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567, 577; 309 NW2d 532 [1981]
• explaining that an established custodial environment can exist with both parents
• explaining that when an established custodial -8- environment exists with both parents, neither parent’s “established custodial environment may be disrupted except on a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that such a disruption is in the child[]’s best interests.”
• stating that when a child has an established custodial environment with both parents, neither parent’s “established custodial environment may be disrupted except on a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that such a disruption is in the children’s best interests”
• stating that when a child has an established custodial environment with both parents, neither parent’s “established custodial environment may be disrupted except on a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that such a disruption is in the children’s best interests”
• applying the “clear and convincing evidence” standard “when there is an established custodial environment with both parents.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).