Thats What I thought as well - Until I read this on another site
I was of the same opinion that living with someone else did not matter until I read the following on another web site. I have not been able to find anything more about this Michigan case online -- thats why I was wondering.
-----
Are the people of Michigan at risk of legal ramifications
in connection with it's anti-cohabitation law? If there
was ever any question, it has now been answered.
The Oakland County Circuit Court has told me that if I
refuse to marry my partner, I am forced to choose between
my children and telling my partner that she must leave the
house we live in, the house where her eight year old
daughter also resides. In the same breath that the
Michigan State Court of Appeals upholds this decision, they
state that the best interest of the children are in tact
whether or not I am married, and whether or not my partner
and her daughter live with me while my children are
present. The Michigan Child Custody Act is rooted and
built on the premise of "the best interest of the child".
The applellate court's actions are contrary to the findings
of Heid v Aaasulewski (After Remand), 209 Mich App 587,
595; 532 NW2d 205 (1995), which states “the overriding
concern must always be the best interests of the children.”
One is called to question the reasons for overstepping
that cardinal rule.
The appellate court rests their opinion on the age old
state anti-cohabitation law that they have recently dusted
off and dealt me. Says the appellate court, "The social
policy of the state of Michigan is established by the
Legislature, not the courts, and we note that MCL 750.335
prohibits lewd and lascivious cohabitation. The
Legislature has not repealed this statute."
"We are not commenting on the morality of the morality of
the situation, but we respect the cohabitation statute that
remains in existence. Sush issues are better directed at
the Legislature."
Wait a minute! I thought it was the duty of the courts to
serve as checks and balances of the Legislature! The
standard that the State has set and abided by in custody
cases involving cohabitation is that, based on rulings by
the Michigan Supreme Court, specifically McCready vs
Hoffius, 459 Mich 131; 586 NW2d 723, discrimination based
on unmarried cohabitation is a violation of civil rights!
If it is considered a violation of civil rights to
discriminate on the basis of unmarried cohabitation, then
marital status and living arrangements are protected
personal characteristics!
In child custody cases, the Court of Appeals has made it
clear, "Consequently, the relevant inquiry pursuant to this
factor is not which party is the “morally superior adult”
but rather, whether the conduct at issue significantly
influences how that individual will function in a parental
capacity.” Price v Price, 2001, 99- 013725-DM, 232154U, at
7, (Michigan Court of Appeals).
Hammond v Hammond – “it is well established that, standing
alone, unmarried cohabitation is not enough to constitute
immorality for the purposes of assessing this factor in a
child custody dispute. See Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich
871, 885-888; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).”
"We recognize the well settled principle that an
individual’s unmarried cohabitation, standing alone, does
not amount to immorality under the Child Custody Act." See
Truitt v Truitt, 172 Mich App 38, 46; 431 NW2d 454 (1988).
One can't help but wonder if the recent controvesy in North
Carolina with the ACLU challenging their newly-resurrected
200 year-old anti-cohabitation law has caused a light bulb
to go off in the collectiove mindset of Michigan's
conservative judicial system, and a green light at that, to
go forward and impose obviously unconstitutional laws on
the public and uphold their conservative agenda.
In my case, the trial court based it's judgement on "Simply
put, there being an affirmitive moral conviction by one
party, and an absence of moral conviction by another party,
in this case tha party with the affirmitive belief
prevails." This statement disregards my testimony that I
wish to grow old with my partner and that I am against
getting married for the wrong reasons, and my ex-wife
having a problem with cohabitating adults is the wrong
reason to get married. Especially seeing how we cohabited
for several years before we married.
The Court of Appeals upheld the judgement based on an age
old anti-cohabitation law that was never brought up in the
case by either side or the trial court.
The people of Michigan should be aware that
anti-cohabitation laws are in effect, and being recognized
to the extent that, at least in this case, I am given the
choice of marrying my partner, having her move out, or
sacrificing what little time I already have with my two
children, a five year old and a seven year old.
