Proper pronoun use has come to court

The Michigan Supreme Court voted to amend Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 1.109 to include language about respecting a litigant’s or attorney’s preferred pronoun when “addressing, referring to, or identifying the party or attorney, either orally or in writing.” It is the first state to do so, and the amendment takes effect January 1, 2024.

Case captions can also include Ms., Mr., or Mx., and a personal gender pronoun. The court must use either the “individual’s name, the designated salutation or personal pronouns, or other respectful means that are not inconsistent” with the person’s designated salutation or pronouns. The vote to amend the rule was five in favor, and two against. Michigan Supreme Court Justice Welch noted that as society evolves, so does vocabulary, and the judiciary must recognize and respect the desired identity and pronouns of the society served.

 

Opponents of the change believe that courts are wading into a significant political issue that has no place in a courtroom. Defenders of the amendment note that if the court has a religious or other objection to using a preferred pronoun, the party can still be addressed by their role and last name (Attorney Jones, Defendant Jones).

 

Like everyone else, judges have personal beliefs and thoughts on gender identity and pronoun use. In an environment that many litigants feel is ripe with bias and inequity, recognizing how a person identifies helps protect against gender prejudice.

Taste the rainbow...somewhere else

California has always been a forward-thinking state and its food additive ban is no exception. European countries have banned certain foods for years based on ingredients that are considered unhealthy, like dyes, trans fats, and chemicals. Frosted Flakes cereal and Wheat Thins are forbidden in the UK, Japan, and other areas in Europe because they contain BHT – butylated hydroxytoluene – for flavor. Artificial colors from dyes yellow 5 and 6, and red 40 (which I am allergic to) are completely nixed in the European Union (EU).

When thinking of bright, eye catching colors and food, one popular candy easily comes to mind – Skittles. Manufactured by Mars, its website weaves an intergalactic tale that Skittles formed 208 million years ago, from an explosive geyser that spewed forth multiple flavors and colors of Skittles. Dinosaurs enjoyed the rainbow candy until 142 million years later, when a “Great Rainbow of BOOM” buried the poor dinos in candy. Who knew this is what really happened – once Florida finds out, expect a science textbook change.

Not everyone is as enthusiastic as the website makes it seem, however. In 2022, a California consumer filed a lawsuit because Skittles contains titanium dioxide (aka TiO2), which is banned in the EU for health and safety reasons. The US hasn’t banned this chemical, but is limited to 1% by weight of the food it’s contained in.

California Assembly Bill 418 aims to remove chemicals red dye 3, potassium bromate, and brominated vegetable oil or propyl paraben, which are already banished from 27 EU countries. The original bill planned on sending TiO2 into exile, and not surprisingly there was a lot of blowback from Skittles lovers. However, the bill has since removed this chemical from the banned list, saving Skittles from rethinking its recipe.

Multiple companies have voluntarily stopped using certain ingredients in their products, most likely because they can see the writing on the wall and anticipate that the US will eventually catch up to other countries with additive bans. The banned ingredients have been accused of being potential links to cancer, and reproductive issues, as well as developmental and behavioral issues in children (not just the sugar high everyone expects).  

The bill provides 4 years for companies to get their act together, with it being effective January 1, 2027. Violations could cost companies up to $10,000. Having passed its final vote, it is on its way to Governor Newsom’s desk. With the exclusion of the Skittles ingredient, Californians can continue to taste the rainbow.

 

Pro Con Prep

You’ve finally made it to the end – the culmination of months of hard work, dividing assets and creating a new future for you and your soon to be ex-spouse. One more step remains until you’re legally single – the “pro confesso” aka pro con hearing. The name, like so many medical and legal terms, derives from Latin, meaning “as though confessed.”

Generally, only the plaintiff appears for this hearing, but nothing prevents the defendant from attending as well. For this hearing to run smoothly, you must make sure you’ve crossed your t’s and dotted your i’s. If you are getting divorced and have no minor children, you’ll wait at least 60 days from the date of filing to the pro con. If minor children are involved, absent court permission, six months is the mandatory wait time. If the parties can show a hardship or other compelling reason to be divorced before the six months, the court can grant an exception; however, 60 days must have passed.

Once you’ve complied with the time frame, you need to make sure all your paperwork is in order. At minimum you will need the Record of Divorce/Annulment and the Judgment of Divorce. If kids are involved, a Uniform Child Support Order and Domestic Relations Judgment Information Form are generally required. Similarly, if spousal support is awarded, a Uniform Spousal Support Order is usually necessary. Certain retirement accounts require Qualified or Eligible Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs or EDROs) for the retirement benefits to be divided.

You won’t need Friend of the Court (FOC) approval if you only have a Judgment of Divorce and/or QDRO or EDRO (no children and no spousal support). Otherwise, be certain to submit your final documents to the FOC for review and approval. Do so as far in advance as possible, because if there are issues (let’s just say there often are), it may take several attempts to cure those defects.

Once you’ve secured the treasured FOC approval, submit the final documents to the court for entry – this may be hard copies or electric filing – be sure to check which is required for your judge.

The pro con hearing itself is easiest if you have an attorney who can guide you through the required Q & A. The court needs to know certain facts under oath, including (but not limited to): the statements in the complaint for divorce remain true, the female party or parties are not pregnant, and the marriage cannot be preserved, and the objects of matrimony have been destroyed. You will be asked specific information about your children and if the orders are in their best interest, and the court needs to know if the settlement was reached freely and voluntarily. There will likely be other questions, so it’s best if you ask your judge if he or she has a preferred pro con testimony script they’d like you to read from.

The judge will ask any clarification questions or any required ones that you missed and will declare you divorced and sign the final documents. At times, parties may not have the final documents prepared and signed but have no fear! The court can still take the pro con testimony and preserve it, giving the parties a timeframe to submit the executed documents for the court’s signature.

Like most things in life, preparation is key to achieving your divorce – while you may not plan on divorcing, you can plan for it to be smoothly finalized.

New hands-free driving law takes effect June 30, 2023

Just in time for the massive July 4^th exodus, Michigan became the 26^th state to pass a “hands-free” driving law, banning use of any mobile electronic devices while driving. Michigan’s restriction on texting and driving has been in effect since 2010, but the new law severely cracks down on what is allowed.

Public Act 41 or 2023 is effective June 30, 2023, and amends current statute MCL 257.602b. While the law is referred to as “hands-free,” it also prohibits drivers from “physically support[ing a mobile electronic device] with any part of the hands, arms, or shoulders.” You cannot make or answer a call, send or read a text message or email, view, record, or send a video, post, read or access any social media, or peruse the world wide web whilst driving. If you must grab your device, you must remain “in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt.”

Exceptions to the rule for us ordinary folk include calling or texting 911, and making an emergency call to health care providers, the fire department or law enforcement. Emergency personnel (police, firefighters, EMT, volunteer first responders) and public utility employees and contractors are exempt from the law if their actions are “during the performance of that individual’s official duties…[or they are] acting within the scope that that individual’s employment when responding to a public utility emergency.”

You can continue to utilize your vehicle’s hands-free/voice activated systems, but anything beyond a single touch is against the law, including when stopped at a red light or jammed up in traffic. If you are legally parked, go ahead and chat, text, and post all you want.   Depending on how many times you violate the law, fines range from $100 up to $500, and community service can be tacked on anywhere from 16 to 48 hours. If you are a real fan of danger and end up with three violations in three years, you will have the privilege of taking a driving course. Fines are doubled if you cause a crash while using a mobile device.

Considering how attached most of us our to our phones and tablets, this law will likely result in quite a few traffic stops. Michigan roads are bad enough, and this law helps ensure your only distractions are dodging potholes.

Appreciating FOC Approval

For family law attorneys, there are few things more frustrating than reaching a settlement, collecting signatures (which can take forever), submitting the order to the Friend of the Court for approval, and getting a big, fat denial. You’ve got to redraft, revise, renegotiate, resign, re-everything so you can obtain that golden seal of approval.

Okay, so it’s not that dramatic but it sure can feel that way when you are in the domestic trenches. MCR 3.211(G) states that the court “may require that the judgment or order be submitted to the friend of the court for review to determine that it contains the provisions required by subrules (C), (D), (E), and (F).” Those subrules detail the mandated language for judgments and orders that contain custody and support terms and spell out what forms the FOC needs for the file.

Local administrative orders can also provide court requirements, including FOC approval. While you may think the process isn’t necessary, or it’s overly cumbersome, it is vitally important to the processing of your orders.

The FOC processes and enforces your various family law orders, so if things are missing or incorrect, the ability to do so drastically decreases. When a FOC attorney reviews the proposed order, he or she can spot any errors and request corrections before the judge signs off. They often consult other departments to ensure it meets their requirements as well.

If mandated provisions are excluded, or if the order contains language that is not appropriate, the judge may refuse to sign it. Once an order is entered and a FOC worker begins to process it, any existing errors may require the parties to submit an amended order correcting the problem. Among other things, it can delay the modification or commencement of support, which is a huge financial headache for the parties. It costs more time, and potentially money if the parties are using attorneys, to rectify the situation. Most importantly, laws and court rules help protect your rights, and without them, you and your family could suffer unintended consequences.

Finality is critical in helping people move on, and the ability to efficiently process court orders from start to finish helps accomplish that finality quickly. The next time you submit orders for approval, remember that the Friend of the Court wants the orders to be approved as much as you do.

Who's your daddy?

Sperm donors are an integral part of helping couples and individuals have families they may otherwise not have. Reputable clinics require donors to undergo rigorous testing and gather an enormous amount of information, genetic and otherwise, which allows the recipients to be well informed about the donor they select.

Some donors choose to make multiple donations, aiding families who want their children to share a genetic father. One donor in the Netherlands, known only as Jonathan M. due to privacy rules, took his obligation to populate the earth to the extreme. Jonathan has fathered at minimum, a whopping 550 children in the Netherlands and other countries.

In 2017 he was banned from donating to Netherland clinics because he had fathered over 100 children at that time. Not deterred, he moved on from the usual donation route to online donation and advertising his services, allowing procreation in other countries.

Citing his goal as wanting to help those otherwise incapable of conceiving, Jonathan is accused of misleading parents as to how many children he fathered and violating Dutch limits for sperm donation. Under Dutch guidelines, the maximum children a person is allowed to father through donation is 25, and it is further restricted to only 12 mothers. This helps lessen the chance that a donor child would unknowingly end up in a romantic relationship with a half-sibling.

Along with others, Eva, a mother of one of Jonathan’s hundreds of children, won a legal injunction in The Hague District Court, banning him from donating further. If he violates the order, Jonathan will be fined $110,000 for each violation. The court noted that “the interests of the donor children and their parents outweigh the interest of the donor in continuing to donate sperm to new prospective parents.” Jonathan must list out the clinics he has donated to so that his sperm can be destroyed, with an exception for parents who had already had children with his sperm and stored more for future children.

While royals have engaged in inbreeding for hundreds of years, I doubt any of these families are happy about their newfound relatives. Imagine taking a home DNA test to learn about your biological family and having hundreds of hits for half-siblings. His behavior brings a whole new meaning to the question “who’s your daddy?"

Dog dreams may be dashed

If you thought things couldn’t get crazier in Florida, think again. Senate minority leader Lauren Book has sponsored a bill that forbids dogs from doing the most dog thing ever – sticking their heads out of car windows. It includes other provisions relative to animal welfare, like declawing, cosmetic animal testing, and animal abuser registration, but the doggy joy ride provision appears to have taken the cake (off the counter when your back was turned).

Senate Bill 932 provides for a variety of canine transportation do’s and don’ts, like not holding your dog on your lap or in “such a position as to interfere with the person’s control over the driving mechanism…while the person is operating the motor vehicle on a public roadway.” That one makes sense, especially given the increase in distracted driver laws. The common sense continues with not allowing a dog to ride in front of you on your motorcycle, or transport a pup on your roof, hood, fender, running board, trunk or cargo space. After that, it gets a little hairy.

The proposed bill states that a person may not “[a]llow a dog to extend its head or any other body part outside a motor vehicle window while the person is operating the motor vehicle on a public roadway.” I think everyone agrees that a dog (or anything else) should not be dangling out of a window, but taking away Fido’s ability to live his best dog life, his ears flapping in the wind, smelling all the smells, seems pawsitively crazy.

Yes, there are risks to Fido sticking his head out of a window, like accidentally stepping on the automatic window button, but the window locks can be engaged. Things may fly in his face and eyes, which can cause harm, but there are doggy goggles he could wear. If there is an accident, the dog may be launched from the vehicle, but most people do not secure their dog inside of their car, so this can happen anyway. A person who is found to have violated that portion of the proposed law would be issued a non-criminal traffic infraction.

Not surprisingly, people have a bone to pick with Senator Book for supporting the bill. Riding in a car with their head out of the window is something that is intrinsically linked to being a dog, their mouths gaping wide with excitement and thrill. Their lives are so much shorter than ours, and because of that, we want to give them the freedom to experience things before they cross rainbow bridge. Forbidding this pleasure would be too ruff to handle.