It appears that this published decision is inconsistent with previous jurisprudence and practice. It has long been clear that, given the parties` agreement on custody and educational time, the court must conduct a summary audit to ensure that the parties` agreement is in the best interests of the child. There is certainly unpublished case law on this subject, see z.B. Vial v Flowers (Docket 332549, published September 27, 2016) and Roguska/Roguska (Docket 291352, published September 29, 2009). In addition, the Child Protection Act allows parents to agree on shared custody, but even in this situation, the court may refuse to grant shared custody if it finds clear and convincing evidence that shared custody is not in the best area of the child. MCL 722.26a; See also Koron v Melendy, 207 Mich App 188, 191 (1994). If the courts blindly accepted the parties` agreements on custody and education time, the Child Protection Act would certainly denounce it. The parties and their lawyers then participated in facilitated mediation. Agreement was reached on all divorce issues, including the payment of $300 per month for child care and additional education time. The parties also agreed to check the time of upbringing and custody of the children when the child has reached a certain age.
In addition, the memorandum appeared to resolve all personal property disputes and expose the parties` various real estate stocks. Some mediators will actually write the parties` agreement in the form of a contract. The mediator will only do so if that is what the parties want. Sometimes the parties want the mediator to prepare the contract because it can save some costs. But even if the Ombudsman writes the contract, it is always necessary for everyone to take the agreement from a lawyer to be heard before signing. The mediator cannot give legal advice to any of the parties. If the Ombudsman gives legal advice, it would not be possible to remain neutral. If the Mediator is not neutral, it may be considered by either party to be biased against it. In the court of appeal`s view, although a court is not obliged to literally accept the parties` provisions or agreements, it may accept them and consider them “at face value” that the parties referred to what they signed.