• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Incarceration and Custody Hearings

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ladyslappymac

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

In Michigan, if one party is incarcerated either in a local jail or state penitentiary, will they be transported to appear at a custody hearing or FOC hearing?
 


BL

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

In Michigan, if one party is incarcerated either in a local jail or state penitentiary, will they be transported to appear at a custody hearing or FOC hearing?
Depending on how important the hearing may be and if it's necessary for the party to be in court ,the Judge may or may not order to produce the inmate .

Just to note : If there is a restraining order or the like ,let security know before the hearing , even if the inmate will still be cuffed or shackled.
 

ladyslappymac

Junior Member
So, I'm assuming for something serious like a termination of parental right hearing, the judge could require the inmate to be brought in. How about a show-cause hearing for nonpayment of child support (unrelated to the current incarceration)? Am I correct that court ordered representation only applies to Criminal cases? Would the case default if the other party wasn't ordered to be brought in and could not secure representation?
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
So, I'm assuming for something serious like a termination of parental right hearing, the judge could require the inmate to be brought in. How about a show-cause hearing for nonpayment of child support (unrelated to the current incarceration)? Am I correct that court ordered representation only applies to Criminal cases? Would the case default if the other party wasn't ordered to be brought in and could not secure representation?

The inmate may also request a telephone appearance which is quite often granted in these cases.

If the other party is simply unable to attend, it's unlikely the hearing would result in a default judgment against him.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Folks she is a major thread deleter. She didn't like the advice she was getting so she deleted her previous thread of several pages. This thread of hers left out several details that was in the prior thread.
 

ladyslappymac

Junior Member
Folks she is a major thread deleter. She didn't like the advice she was getting so she deleted her previous thread of several pages. This thread of hers left out several details that was in the prior thread.
That thread was deleted because Ohiogal felt the need to repeatedly attack me via the thread. This forum is for legal advice not for attacking those asking a question. If you don't like a question that is asked, simply don't waste your time responding.

The "details" from the prior thread are not important for the purpose of asking this question or I would have included them.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I didn't attack you. I explained legally where you stood. You did NOT like those answers. You then deleted the thread.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I didn't attack you. I explained legally where you stood. You did NOT like those answers. You then deleted the thread.
Each person's perspective of what is or isn't an attack is different...particularly with the written word, where there is no body language to go along with it.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Each person's perspective of what is or isn't an attack is different...particularly with the written word, where there is no body language to go along with it.
The funny thing is I started on her thread agreeing with her. It was only when I pointed out legal issues with some of her points that I was "attacking". it doesn't change the fact that she deleted a major thread with a lot of information involved with it. Why? Because she didn't like what she was told.
 

ladyslappymac

Junior Member
No, I acknowledged where I legally stand and tried to make that clear. Yet you continued to berate me left and right.

You could have simply said that the chances of obtaining the termination was slim because of A, B, and C. There was no need for you to repeatedly pick apart everything I said. I have no problem with advice that isn't favorable but your responses were brutal and unnecessary.
 

ladyslappymac

Junior Member
The funny thing is I started on her thread agreeing with her. It was only when I pointed out legal issues with some of her points that I was "attacking". it doesn't change the fact that she deleted a major thread with a lot of information involved with it. Why? Because she didn't like what she was told.
Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it. How can you say that you started out agreeing with me? Your whole response was about how I am NOBODY and I have NO RIGHTS and so on. Again, I had acknowledged, several times, that I know I don't have any LEGAL rights in the situation however, I do have their best interests at heart. I only came here looking for advice. That's all.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Perhaps I shouldn't have deleted it. How can you say that you started out agreeing with me? Your whole response was about how I am NOBODY and I have NO RIGHTS and so on. Again, I had acknowledged, several times, that I know I don't have any LEGAL rights in the situation however, I do have their best interests at heart. I only came here looking for advice. That's all.
You shouldn't have deleted it. Because quite frankly why should ANYONE waste time helping you when if you hear something you don't like you will just delete it again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top