Was Michigan Law Followed?

1. A child's right to parenting time can only be taken away by "clear and convincing evidence" of danger

The law: Under Michigan's Child Custody Act, MCL 722.27a(3), a child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record, by clear and convincing evidence, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical, mental, or emotional health. Clear and convincing evidence is one of the highest standards of proof that exists in civil law -- higher than the ordinary "more likely than not" standard used in most civil cases.

What happened in my case: The signed "Order Following Hearing," dated December 1, 2025, suspends my parenting time indefinitely and orders law enforcement to locate and retrieve my daughter Maryam. The order's own text states only this as its factual basis: "This matter came before the Court on an Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiff appeared. Defendant failed to appear. The Court having reviewed the record and being otherwise fully informed." There is no finding, anywhere in the order, that I endangered Maryam's physical, mental, or emotional health -- clear and convincing or otherwise. What the record actually contained, at the time that order was entered, was the opposite: documentation from two separate mental-health agencies that the transfer itself -- not staying with me -- was the specific and named risk to Maryam's safety.

2. Changing where a child actually lives requires the same high standard, and requires findings

The law: MCL 722.27(1)(c) provides that a court cannot change a child's "established custodial environment" -- the home a child has come to naturally rely on for guidance, discipline, and daily care -- unless clear and convincing evidence shows the change is in the child's best interest. Michigan appellate courts have repeatedly held that a trial court must state its findings and conclusions on the record when it changes custody or parenting time in a way that affects the established custodial environment, so that the decision can actually be reviewed.

What happened in my case: Maryam had been living with me. The December 1, 2025 order changed that -- indefinitely, and by force of law enforcement -- without a single stated finding about her established custodial environment, without weighing the clear and convincing evidence standard on the record, and without addressing the clinical evidence already in front of the court that the move itself was dangerous to her.

3. The court has to consider -- and account for -- twelve specific best-interest factors

The law: MCL 722.23 lists twelve specific factors a Michigan court must consider in any custody or parenting-time decision, including the emotional ties between parent and child; each parent's capacity to provide guidance and meet the child's needs; the mental and physical health of the parties; and, under factor (k), domestic violence, "regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child."

What happened in my case: On November 26, 2024, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Custody Placement and Request for Written Explanation of Safety and Welfare Determination -- asking the court, in writing, to explain how it had weighed these exact factors. That motion was denied the same day, as part of a single order that denied nine other motions together, with no individual reasoning given for any of them. The court refused even to explain, in writing, how it had decided the placement was safe. Separately, in open court, Judge Abraham stated she was "not a mandated reporter" of child abuse and did not have to consider the evidence I had of my children's abuse -- evidence directly relevant to factor (k).

4. A parent is entitled to a real hearing before losing custody -- not a hearing they are physically prevented from attending

The law: Michigan Court Rule 3.207, as amended effective June 18, 2025, requires that any order that may change a child's established custodial environment be followed by an evidentiary hearing, and requires that the ex parte order itself include notice of that hearing. The purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to give the parent a real, meaningful chance to present evidence and be heard before a life-altering decision about their child becomes final.

What happened in my case: The December 1, 2025 order is titled "Order Following Hearing" and describes itself as resulting from an "Evidentiary Hearing." But I did not attend it -- because I was involuntarily hospitalized at the time, a fact documented in VA hospital records, and because the court had already denied my request to appear remotely for that exact hearing weeks earlier (see the ADA Rights page for the Court's own written denial). A hearing that a party is both medically unable to attend and legally barred from attending remotely is not the meaningful opportunity to be heard that an evidentiary hearing is supposed to provide.

5. Jailing a parent for contempt requires its own due process -- notice, a hearing, and proof

The law: Under MCL 600.1701 and Michigan's contempt procedures, indirect contempt -- meaning conduct that did not happen in front of the judge, such as missing a court date -- requires a hearing, proper notice of the charges, a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defense, and, where incarceration is a possible outcome, the right to counsel. Serious criminal contempt can require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard used in criminal trials generally.

What happened in my case: I missed one court date, on October 7, 2024. I was found in contempt and, on December 20, 2024, arrested and jailed for approximately six weeks. There was no trial. While I was in custody, I was denied phone access for the first two and a half weeks -- the same weeks I was diagnosed with lung cancer -- and exposed to both COVID-19 and tuberculosis in the jail population, despite my documented heart and lung disease and compromised immune system.

The pattern, put simply

Every one of these five legal protections exists for the same reason: to make sure a parent cannot lose their child, or their liberty, without the court first proving its case on the record, in writing, in a hearing the parent actually had a fair chance to attend. In my case, the orders that took away my parenting time and my freedom do not show that proof. They show a "failed to appear" where I was hospitalized and had already been denied the accommodation to appear by video. They show ten motions denied together in one order, including the one asking the court to simply explain itself in writing. They show six weeks in jail after missing a single court date, with no trial. Whatever else is true about this case, the law required more than what these signed orders show was done.