AttorneyNews & Articlestestimonialscontact divorce attorneyDirectionsDivorce Attorney Michigan  
  Family Law Attorney  
  Representative Clients  
Child Support
Parenting Time
commercial litigation
real estate
representative clients
Law Links


Representative Cases


In order to maintain client confidentiality, I have only summarized cases which were submitted to the Court or Appeals. All information contained in the summaries are a matter of public record.

Muller vs. Muller-Court of Appeals Docket No: 259271 (2005)
No unrelated members of opposite sex overnight during parenting time.

I represented the mother of two girls, ages 4 and 6. Mother objected to her ex husband allowing his girlfriend to spend the night when he had parenting time with the girls on alternate weekends. I filed a Motion to Modify Parenting Time to prohibit any member of the opposite sex to be in the home overnight during parenting time. The Trial Court ordered a mutual restraint that neither party have an unrelated person of the opposite sex overnight during parenting. An Evidentiary Hearing was held, Mother, Father and girlfriend testified. Father had bragged about his new relationship and sexual exploits extensively on various internet sites. He had posted an erotic photo of the girlfriend. The mother testified that she was not comfortable with his new found sexual bravado and lack of concern of what was best for the children. Fathers’ girlfriend testified that although she had been previously married to the father of her daughter, age 6, she now objected to marriage on moral grounds. Father admitted that unmarried cohabitation is not necessarily a good example for his daughters.

The trial court concluded that it was in the best interest of the minor children that there be no unrelated member of the opposite sex overnight while exercising parenting time. Father appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling continuing the prohibition on any unrelated member of the opposite sex spending the night during parenting time. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision can be accessed at: Muller vs. Muller

Ellehaf vs. Tarraf
A marriage under Muslim law is not recognized by the Court

Michigan Court of Appeals March 23, 2006

In this case I represented the father. The parties had twin sons. They had a religious ceremony under Muslim law to formalize their relationship. The mother filed a motion claiming that the “marriage” under Muslim law should be recognized by the Court and entitle her to one-half of the father’s property and to spousal support. I was able to successfully argue to the trial court that the State of Michigan does not recognize Muslim law as a grounds for a legally valid marriage.

The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals and the issue was briefed and argued. The Court of Appeals held that the requirements for a legal marriage are strictly statutory. They held that a relationship that does not meet the statutory requirements for a legal marriage does not give rise to property rights, personal rights, or rights to support.

Further, the court noted that the Defendant had acted inconsistent with her claim that she was validly married to the father. She had applied for Social Security Benefits which required her to verify that she did not live with anyone other than her sons. She also represented to police officers in a police report unrelated to this matter that she was the father’s girlfriend, not his wife. She also filed Federal income tax returns as “Head of Household” not as a married person. Finally, she stated on the Affidavit of Parentage for the two children she had with Plaintiff that she was not married. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to deny Defendant any rights to father's property and to deny her spousal support. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is at: Ellehaf vs. Tarraf

Moslimani vs. Moslimani, Court of Appeals Docket No. 296487 (2010)
Award of sole physical cusotdy and legal custody to Mother upheld

I successfully defended the trial court’s award of sole custody of the parties’ two children to Mother. Father was physically and verbally abusive in front of the children. He was controlling and falsely accused her of having extra-marital affairs. Father was diagnosed with Lymphoma and was hospitalized three times during the case. He had chemotherapy and claimed to be totally cured. The trial lasted nine (9) days. The Trial Court found in mother’s favor under several factors used to evaluate the best interest of the children. Father appealed. I read the transcripts of the trial, prepared an Appellate Brief and argued the case before the Court of Appeals. The Trial Court’s decision was affirmed. A copy of the Court of Appeals decision is at: Moslimani vs. Moslimani

Chappell vs. Raffaelle, Court of Appeals Docket No./ 134365 (1990)
Physical custody to Father affirmed

I successfully represented father in maintaining physical custody of his two sons. Mother had remarried a doctor and had substantial resources. The court appointed psychologist and the Friend of the Court both recommended that custody be changed from Father to Mother. A lengthy trial was held. The trial court ruled that Mother did not meet the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that custody should be changed. Mother appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.


Cases are in Adobe Format

Adobe Reader required to view

click here to download

Adobe Reader

Representative Cases

The information contained within the Elizabeth A. Silverman
website is intended for informational purposes only.

The content, including any publications, is not intended as
professional counseland should not be used as such.

The users of our site should not consider any information on our website to be construed as forming an attorney/client relationship. By using this site, you acknowledge that nothing on this website is
intended to be construed as legal advice
map Elizabeth A. Silverman P.C.
30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 500
Farmington Hills, MI 48334