There's also a felony parental kidnapping charge against Mr Gres that's pending. When the law enforcement went to enforce referee Legals in fact your order, she took off with the minor child and fled. >> Your Honor, attorney Caldebron with on behalf of Rebecca Degres.
We both appear uh via Zoom separately today. >> Thank you. >> Uh good morning, Elliot Bloomberg on behalf of James Dash.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh this is set for hearing today.
Uh number one we have this set for a status conference. Number two uh Mr Gres through her counsel has filed a an objection to an order that was entered by the referee back on July 1st. I've had a chance to review that objection along with Mr Bloomberg's order or I'm sorry response to that objection.
And so uh typically Mr Breaker what the court would do at this hearing although I think we've got some threshold issues that we we're going to need to address uh would would be to I I kind of treat these as a pre-trial type hearing because uh this is my motion day so I don't have evidentiary [clears throat] hearing scheduled for this date but the court would set it for an evidentiary hearing at a later date with um input from both sides as to >> [clears throat] >> the amount of time that we would need and any witnesses and so forth but uh my understanding based on your response Mr Bloomberg is that it's your position that the the court should not even allow a de novo hearing based on Ms. Degres' failure to appear uh at the referee hearing. Is that Is that a fair statement of your side?
>> Yes, it is, Judge. >> Is there anything you wanted to say in support of that today? >> Well, and not only again was this the first time Mr Gres failed to appear for a hearing?
Uh, she had her filed an earlier objection on another referee ruling. We had a hearing scheduled before your honor. She failed to appear for that.
Uh, she's been held in contempt now, I believe, three times. Referee Legal uh, recommended impose three days of jail for uh, continued uh, denial of parenting time. Uh, and I think the friend of the court documents clearly establish, right in the second page, that failure to appear for the referee hearing, one loses their ability to file an objection.
So, I think given that history, the uh, denial of this objection would be appropriate. >> All right, Mr De Braker, what's your position on that? >> Well, your honor, first of all, uh, my client simply tells me she didn't get notice of the hearing.
Um, Your honor, we we filed specific objections, requested the the novo judicial hearing, and although that right does exist, regardless of whether she appeared before the referee on that hearing, like I said, she simply says that she didn't get the notice, um, and therefore had no opportunity to testify, cross-examine, all those good things. And following what appears to be an hour of testimony from defendant alone, the recommendation, which has interim effect, completely all altered the ECC, including the sole legal and primary physical custody aspects of this case. It permitted relocation, substantially reduced my client's time, and and of course imposed a three-day three-day jail sentence.
Um, we we acknowledge, you know, any prior contempt history does not eliminate her right to have present allegations heard by the court, nor should incarceration be enforced before the court can, I suppose, independently review the contempt issue at the de novo hearing. My client is prepared to present evidence regarding the established custodial environment, domestic violence and safety allegations. Um, and ultimately, your honor, this is this is not a simple parenting time motion.
This is a complete change in custody and parenting time where my client has all the parenting time. Now, she's I think limited to about 3 weeks, um, other than holiday time. So, your honor, I mean, my client does acknowledge that that was a very my client acknowledges that was a very important hearing, and she acknowledges that she would have liked to be present.
Um, however, she just stated that she simply didn't get the notice. >> All right. I have a couple questions.
What What's the status of the custody of the child now because, uh, that's not clear to me based on the filings. >> Your honor, >> But, um, are you As I'm sorry, who are you directing that to? >> Sorry, I should have said that, Mr Bloomberg.
>> Judge, based on the referee's ruling, uh, custody has been physically changed to my client. There is also a felony parental kidnapping charge against Mr Greszler pending. When the law enforcement went to enforce referee Legal's, uh, in fact, your order, uh, she took off with the minor child and fled.
Uh, she was finally found and arrested. So, physical custody resides with my client. >> Your honor, I would disagree with that classification.
My client did not flee simply because she wasn't home at the time the order was supposed to be enforced. But, it Dad does have the child. >> Where Where is the Are you saying there have charges have been authorized, Mr Bloomberg, and in what jurisdiction?
You're in Otsego County or somewhere else? >> Uh, you know, I I think it's Otsego, but it may well be, um, Oscoda County as Mr Greszler uh, was residing in Oscoda County, but I I I As I give more thought to it, I think it's out of Otsego County. >> Your honor, I I do believe it's Oscoda if I'm not mistaken.
>> Okay. Mr DeBreaker, has your client been arraigned on those charges yet? >> I believe she has.
She is released on bond currently. >> Are there any bond conditions that deal with her ability to have contact with the child? >> Your honor, um I believe she just was released on Friday.
I don't have that information regarding bond conditions currently. >> Well, I mean, I guess I'm going to assume in a case [clears throat] where that's the charge, there's going to be a bond condition prohibiting your client from having contact. Okay.
Okay. I'm going to ask uh counsel to just remain here connected for a minute. I I just want to see if I can get some more information on the uh bond conditions from either Oscoda or Otsego County.
I'm I'm not going to take a lot of time cuz I do have to go forward with the packet. Um but if everyone could just remain on the line, um I'm going to put you all back in the waiting room. Cases in Otsego County you tried to find on a record in Otsego County District Court, and I [clears throat] at least in the short time I had to locate I couldn't find that, so I believe it's in Oscoda County most likely, but so I'm not able to see what the bond conditions are.
Um but either way, uh to address some of the issues that have been raised here uh by the parties. Number one, I took a close look at the file and the orders that have been issued over the past uh month or so since July, um and it appears as well as the file in general, and kind of what's going on over the past 6 months or so in this case, um and so there's a couple things that I think are noteworthy in terms of the court's determination about how to proceed. Number one, I think there were two issues raised at the July hearing and that one was a motion to change custody, and the other was parenting time violation.
And when I read the referee's recommendation with regard to custody and the referee's findings with regard to parenting time violations and contempt, um which the custody part of it the court did not sign an order adopting the custody part, um but did sign an order dated July 2nd adopting findings regarding the parenting time violation. And so the the language regarding interim effect in my view and my reading by the referee all referred to the penalties, um for lack of better term, for the parenting time violations. In other words, that uh the defendant would get custody for the remainder of the summer as a makeup parenting time thing and that was given interim effect.
There isn't any language in the recommended order by the referee giving interim effect to the change of custody. I don't know that um as we go forward here that that that's a difference that or a distinction that makes a difference, but I think it's important to point that out. Um So, you know, when the court looks at the the Mr Grayson's objection based on the interim effect, number one, looking at MCR 3.
215 G3, which was cited, does indicate it that the court can't give interim effect to changes in custody by administrative order. In other words, the court can't issue a blanket order that that any of those things are just automatically given interim effect. Um it doesn't say that the court can't on a case-by-case basis give interim effect to changes in custody.
So, to the extent that the remedy for the parenting time violation, in other words, giving the defendant uh um, parenting time for the remainder of the summer of 2026 to the extent that that does result in a change of custody, the court finds that there isn't any violation of the court rule or anything that would prohibit that from having interim effect because it's not resulting from a blanket administrative order by the court, but rather individualized finding in this case based on the referee's recommendation and findings, uh, that that was an appropriate remedy. So, the court finds that there isn't anything procedurally improper about giving giving interim effect to that portion of the order [clears throat] as objected to. So, I'm denying that objection for purposes of the record.
Um, then the issue is the defendant's argument regarding whether or not plaintiff is entitled to a de novo hearing at all. Um, I appreciate, uh, you know, Mr DeBrey here, your your's and your client's position that she didn't receive notice. Um, the the file reflects that she was provided notice at her last known address.
If she has not updated that with friend of the court, uh, or with the court clerk, then that's something that's, you know, on her end. The objection references some kind of health issue along with not receiving notice. So, I don't have any documentation supporting that there was some kind of health issue that would have prevented her from attending that hearing.
I also think that to me suggests that, you know, when you have two kind of excuses for not making a hearing that aren't mutually that are mutually exclusive, in other words, she either didn't know about it or she couldn't attend because she had a health issue. It can't be >> [clears throat] >> kind of both [snorts] of those at the same time or, you know, it's hard to argue those two things as alternate theories for her failure to appear. So, I find that troubling.
Um I'm not sure that I find Ms. Degrace's failure to appear for that hearing to be for good cause based on either health condition, which I have no documentation [clears throat] of, or that she didn't receive notice when there's no indication in the court file that her notice was returned to the court as undeliverable or something like that. And you know, kind of making those two excuses at the same time to me undermines the credibility of any excusable failure to appear for that hearing.
I also have to take note of what's going on prior to that, which is multiple failures by Ms. Degrace to appear. Um she filed an objection to a previous order by the referee.
Um the court set that for hearing on February 2nd of 2026. She failed to appear for that hearing. The court reset it for March 2nd of 2026.
She failed to appear for that hearing, and those were again, not things that uh the court was ordering her to appear for. Those were dates the court set at her request. Um it appears to me that there was a hearing set in front of the referee or held in front of the referee on May 27th of 2026, um where the scheduling was set for the July 1st hearing.
The referee's order there seems to indicate she didn't appear for that hearing either. It just refers to the defendant and the defendant's attorney [clears throat] appearing for that. Um also, you know, there were were requirements put in place, not only that she appear for the July 1st hearing, but uh to exchange witness lists and comply with other procedural requirements, which the defendant did.
And along with not appearing for that hearing, the plaintiff did not either. So, I guess not having If she didn't have notice, I guess it would excuse that, but uh if it was based on a health issue, there's no reason why she couldn't have or wouldn't have submitted those kind of things prior to the hearing in preparation for that hearing. Um, and then if she couldn't attend because of some last-minute health emergency, you [snorts] know, again, those things just don't it's not all uh adding up.
And all of that on top of the the fact that the purpose of a de novo hearing, the right to a de novo hearing, is where where both sides appear, they present evidence in [clears throat] front of the the referee, the referee makes factual findings, and and one side or the other doesn't agree with those findings and wants the judge to make a determination um, based on that. Um, I don't think in a circumstance like we have here where um, the defendant has appeared all along for every hearing, um, was ready to go uh with witnesses, had supplied witness and exhibit lists in advance of that hearing on July 1st, um, was there ready to present evidence and did present evidence, and where the plaintiff uh has a history of not appearing for hearings, doesn't appear for that hearing, um, and and essentially allows the plaintiff to skip the entire referee process, um, to me is is not the purpose of the right to de novo hearing. And so, if this was a situation where that was the only hearing that the plaintiff missed and she had otherwise complied, I think there would be room for finding a good cause and either to refer it back to the referee for a hearing or to have a de novo hearing in front of the court.
But again, I this is more than just that. I think there are multiple factors here. Um, and then that's to say nothing of uh Mr Gratz's failure to comply with the court orders and to be uh currently charged uh with parental kidnapping on top of all of that those other things.
So, all of that taken together again, the court finds provides a basis for the court to find that she's waived any right at this point. I simply think it would be unfair to allow her to engage in this entire course of conduct going back to February of this year of not appearing of not not seeking to address her own rights in this case and then at the very end after the defendant has complied with everything now seeking for another hearing. So again, based on the entire course and sequence of events including what's happened since that July recommended recommended order was put in place the court is going to deny the objection in its entirety [clears throat] and Mr Bloomberg, I would request that you submit an order to the court reflecting that ruling and Mr DeBreaker, to the extent that you know I guess I would just say it would be up to you from that point forward to address any other legal procedural rights miss DeBreaker may have challenged at the time of the court here today.
Mr Bloomberg, the court's not going to wait for any further proceedings. The the order from July 1st of the referee will be given effect and the court will Mr Bloomberg, you can include in your order a a statement indicating that the friend of the court is to draft an order for the court to sign. >> I [clears throat] can do that.
I just I want to make sure we're all on the same page. If the objection has been denied, that that means that the referee's recommendation becomes the order of the court? >> Correct.
>> Okay. And and again, I don't mean to I I I guess that's what a little clarification. Given that the referee took testimony and made a recommendation that custody should be changed, does that mean that at the end of the summer the defendant continues to have physical custody of the child?
>> Right. So that that order will go into effect because the court has denied the injunction. So that all portions of the the referee's findings from July 1st.
>> I understand. Thank you. >> Okay.
Thank you. That's all for this hearing today and all parties are free to disconnect at this time.
