Ex-Wife Ignored Court Orders & Secretly Switched Schools—Judge Shut Her Down Fast #CourtroomDrama

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Your Honor, Jordan A. Shulan Broad on behalf of the uh the defendant Brandon Meade, who last I knew was in the waiting room and I do not see him.

[00:00:08]>> I do see him on my screen now, so I believe he's here with us. Are you here, Mr. Meade?

[00:00:13]>> Yes, sir.

[00:00:14]>> All right, thank you. So, it looks like we have counsel and the parties um got a bunch of busy stuff going on with this case, so let me get it set up here in my file.

[00:00:35]It looks like like we have a request for um to set aside the referee's recommendation.

[00:00:44]And then we have a objection to the referee's recommendation. Uh I believe that's all the same thing uh from the plaintiffs. Uh so, let me hear from the plaintiffs first and then we'll hear from the defense and then we'll see where we go from there.

[00:00:58]>> Yes, Your Honor. Uh thank you. We are requesting a de novo hearing pursuant to MCR 3.215.

[00:01:04]Under that court rule, the court may conduct a hearing, take additional evidence, or order that the referee conduct a further [clears throat] hearing when necessary to properly decide the issues, and that's what we think is going on here in this case. The referee's recommendation rests materially It rests on materially incomplete record, particularly as it relates to the child's school placement, um which, as we all know, is a significant joint legal custody issue that directly implicates multiple best interest factors.

[00:01:32]Um >> Let me interrupt you for just a second.

[00:01:35]Uh um I think that there's two steps to this process. One is that there was a already an order entered adopting the referee's recommendation. Is that correct?

[00:01:45]>> That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:46]>> So, you're asking me to set that aside based on some um service issues that you had trying to get that objection here in a timely manner. Is that correct?

[00:01:57]>> That is correct, Your Honor. Just for additional context, um I think I even misspoke in my motion for reconsideration in that I I believe I indicated that we gave opposing counsel notice on the 16th prior to the deadline. She was actually given notice on the 15th. Um we did overnight our objection to get to the court the next morning, and apparently it did not get there until the day after the deadline. Um that's our own deal with UPS and as to why that occurred, but we would argue that certainly Dad has not been prejudiced by this delay. I think that's even more evident in the fact that he was able to file a response to our objection. So, as far as I'm aware, cuz it's not It was never brought up to me.

[00:02:44]I didn't notice that this was late until we got the signed order um through our records request uh that we realized that there was a problem. So, we would argue that nobody's been prejudiced by the delay. We're here today.

[00:02:59]Um and we would ask that, you know, based for the re- on the reasons outlined in our motion that the court could constitute the constitute the delay as excusable mistake or neglect, however you want to word it, but um I don't feel disposing of the objection and request for a de novo serves the children's best interest um just because of a technicality.

[00:03:22]>> All right. As to that limited motion to set aside the order based on the service issue, uh defense counsel, your response?

[00:03:31]>> Well, Your Honor, I don't have that Well, I I see it now cuz my assistant brought it in cuz it's in my mail this morning, this motion to set aside. I see at the bottom of his cover letter he said he emailed it to me uh I don't I presume November 5th, the date of his cover letter. I did not receive that via email. So, I have not even reviewed his motion to set aside. I am aware that he is making that request.

[00:03:54]My position is um I see it in his motion now that he states his client retained him a couple days prior to the objection period. Um this is kind of her uh MO in this type of case. It's happened in motions before where she is not timely.

[00:04:10]Um she withdraws the motions after my client spends significant fees defending them. And so my position is that the court should uphold their order and that it wasn't filed timely.

[00:04:21]>> Your Honor, if I may offer some quick insight.

[00:04:24]I I also don't know the veracity of the truth as to what counsel just stated regarding, you know, prior filings or being withdrawn. I I will point out that even when I look at the register of actions, my client had less than 7 days notice for this evidentiary hearing. It doesn't even look like for this February or September 15th hearing, the actual notice of hearing was not prepared until September 9th. So procedurally, I think my client was at a disadvantage. I think that pertains both to this issue as well as the request for the de novo. But nonetheless, um >> Look at how the plaintiff's attorney pivots here.

[00:05:03]Instead of backing away from the procedural problems, he turns the spotlight onto the hearing notice itself.

[00:05:09]>> I Again, I do not think that dismissing this based on a technicality serves the children's best interests, the child's best interest, in any way, shape, or form. And we're here, I do not know why we would not just continue as as planned.

[00:05:25]>> All right. I'm going to uh agree to set aside the order adopting the referee's recommendation because I do believe that uh plaintiff's counsel attempted uh had it answer ready prior to the or had an objection ready prior to the expiration of the time period. Um but there was an issue with overnight mail, which he has documented in his motion, that appears to me to be uh while he was skating very close to the edge as far as the time limit, he did take action, substantial action within the time limit that normally would have gotten the objection to the court within the normal time period.

[00:06:14]But for the court's efficiency, where I entered the order on the first day that it was possible to enter that order, it nor in most courts and in quite frankly in this court, normally it would have taken a couple of days and the documentation would have been here in a timely manner.

[00:06:32]So, for those reasons, the procedural technicality of it, I am going to grant the request to set aside the order adopting the referee's recommendation and find that the um objection was timely entered, which brings us to So, counsel, if you would plaintiff's counsel, if you would prepare an order that grants that motion for my signature, I would appreciate that. And then that brings us to today, where there is the request for a de novo hearing.

[00:07:04]So, I'll hear argument on whether or not we should have a de novo hearing and then we'll set if that's granted, we'll set a time in the future for the actual argument and because I've not had a chance to review the referee's CD or the video of that yet.

[00:07:21]So, we'll hear some argument on whether or not we should have a de novo hearing.

[00:07:24]So, I'll allow plaintiff now to argue that motion. Go ahead, sir.

[00:07:28]>> Thank you, Your Honor. As I was just mentioning, this hearing was originally scheduled for October 15th, the the referee evidentiary hearing, and then suddenly, I I believe my client got notice on September 8th that the hearing was now be moving being moved up to September 15th. The notice for that hearing was actually prepared on September 9th.

[00:07:48]Um, and I think that leaves her at a severe disadvantage. She did try to get officials from both schools, as well as other witnesses to appear for that hearing. Of course, um, she is not attorney. I I I understand that she didn't know how to subpoena these witnesses, but I must say even if I had 6 days notice of a hearing, I think it would be very difficult for me to get witnesses subpoenaed for an evidentiary hearing on such short turnaround. So, with that, I think immediately she was at a disadvantage for this hearing. Um, and first of all, the referee did not hear because of this testimony from any personnel at the child's school, the prior school or the current school.

[00:08:31]Yet, these are the individuals who teach, evaluate, observe this child daily. It's not just based on uh subjective opinions of the parties, and we believe that these witnesses would have essential facts under several best interest factors, particularly B.H. and and J.

[00:08:45]Without that testimony, the referee clearly lacks a complete evidentiary basis to assess the child's schooling needs and whether or not the the the the current school versus the prior school, you know, who is better equipped to uh accommodate the child. Not to mention, the referee didn't hear any testimony regarding other options as well, such as other schools, homeschooling, whatever else there could be. I think it's also important to note that this objection appear or the uh the the recommendation, your honor, appears to be more heavily focused on sanction driven regarding my client and her procedural deficiencies and going about this, rather than what's actually in the child's best interest. So, we believe that the Michigan courts have recognized that this de novo process exists to ensure that the judge and the referee can make the ultimate decision on contested issues based on a complete record and that the court uses the de novo hearing to receive additional evidence where the referee's record does not adequately address the child's best interest and that's what we think is going on here. We don't believe that this is a minor issue. The school placement is significant.

[00:09:58]>> This next section gets extremely strategic because the plaintiff's side carefully avoids asking for a full re-trial.

[00:10:05]Instead, they present the request as merely >> It affects the child's stability, daily routine, connections, um access to academic supports, which I think is clearly um controlling in this case simply because this child does have an IEP and this kind of decision of this magnitude should not rest on a partially complete record.

[00:10:30]We are not asking the court to re-hear this matter. We're not asking the court to re-litigate. We're just asking to supplement additional testimony so that this court can make a proper decision in the child's best interest.

[00:10:41]Uh at the end of the day, your honor, I think the process here was uh procedurally deficient itself in the fact that there was such short notice for my client to gather these witnesses for this hearing and we would just ask that this court either send this case back to the referee in order to conduct uh some supplemental testimony or this court can hear that in a de novo hearing, but we would ask that this court allow my client to present that uh evidence and testimony.

[00:11:12]>> Defense counsel.

[00:11:14]>> Thank you, your honor. First, I rely on all of the arguments set forth in my response to uh plaintiff's objection.

[00:11:20]The fact of the matter is Ms. Rollins failed to properly prepare for what was a 3-hour evidentiary hearing. She can claim all she wants, but she didn't have time to prepare, but my client had the same amount of time. She filed to my office 3 days before the evidentiary hearing a list of proposed exhibits and witnesses. She failed to call witnesses.

[00:11:40]She failed to um And I will disclaim my uh colleague did handle the evidentiary hearing. So, to my knowledge, um she did not submit any evidence at the evidentiary hearing. She could have raised procedural issues at that time or timeliness issues, and that was not done. In fact, now she's retained counsel just days before the deadline, and as we just went over, had issues getting an objection in timely. Um and now she does want to relitigate this whole case. Her whole 60-some paragraph objection sets forth how what evidence she will present, what witnesses she would like to call. All of that would have been available and was available to her at the evidentiary hearing. She filed an ex parte motion trying to change the child's school. It was denied. Uh my client did the same thing to try to prevent the change of school.

[00:12:30]That was denied. And there were several hearings noticed. Um my office had to call the court numerous times to make sure we were prepared and that what was noticed was actually what was happening that day. She could have done the exact same thing and failed to do so. The fact that she was under prepared for, again, what was a 3-hour evidentiary hearing, it would be prejudicial to my client if this court allowed another uh full-blown evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to MCR 3.215 F2, this court does have discretion to limit uh witnesses and exhibits that were available to her at the time of the evidentiary hearing. Frankly, I don't think an allowable hearing should be granted at all in this case, but if one is, I would request that they are limited to new evidence available after uh the evidentiary hearing, which frankly will only be detrimental to her cuz the child is not doing well in his current school. I also do want to point out that she continues to violate this court's order despite the referee's recommendation admonishing her for saying. We are now going on four months of the child being in a choice of school of her choice only that only benefits her. The child again is doing extremely poorly in her sake of arguing against my own argument of bringing up new evidence.

[00:13:48]Uh, the this cannot continue to go on. We have a show cause motion pending and I believe sanctions should be granted against her and the child should immediately be replaced in Gaylord Community Schools.

[00:14:01]>> May I have a brief response? Yes, thank you, Your Honor. So, first of all, I I would caution the court as to allowing this allowing counsel to provide facts that have not been proven or testified to regarding how the child is currently doing. I will say that I think it's even more concerning that neither one of these parties actually reside in this district anymore. I can't even say today that this child could even be allowed back into the Gaylord School District.

[00:14:31]My client has sold her home and it's not just as simple as well, it's in this child's best interest that we limit this witness testimony. This court's job is to determine what is actually in this child's best interest and the only way they can do that is to get a full record to review.

[00:14:49]I I I would say that these witnesses weren't available on such short notice and I do not think should be limited. I I don't think >> The plaintiff's attorney quickly objects to factual claims about the child's current struggles. Warning the court those statements were never formally proven.

[00:15:07]>> My goal here is not to have cumulative testimony. It's not to put my client back on the stand to testify to what she already did, but it would be my intent to take a few hours to get the people in here and maybe the court's opinion changes, maybe it doesn't, but I think by giving my client less than 7 days notice for this hearing that that put her at a disadvantage.

[00:15:29]Um I do think that's a violation of her due process, and at the end of the day we we don't feel in any way, shape, or form that any of this is to serve the best interest of the child rather than just sanction my client.

[00:15:47]>> May I respond, Your Honor?

[00:15:49]>> No.

[00:16:00]How is it that your client plaintiff's counsel didn't have notice, didn't have preparation time when she didn't bring the issue of changing schools to the court's attention until the end of August?

[00:16:17]How is it that she would not have proper notice that a hearing would be required and that witnesses and school information would be necessary when she waited until August the 28th to file to even file a first motion regarding changing school systems beginning the next weekend or after the next weekend after the the Labor Day weekend?

[00:16:46]So how is it that she did not have sufficient time to file a motion and gather the witnesses and evidence that she needed during the entire length of the summer preceding her motion?

[00:17:00]>> And I think that's a fair question, Your Honor. I think that just lends uh questions to the timeline here. My My understanding is that my client had discussed this with the opposing party, and it wasn't until the end of summer that he indicated he wasn't okay with this arrangement. That's my understanding.

[00:17:18]Um and at that point she had was well underway of already I mean, obviously she she had to take steps to get this child into this school ahead of that filing. It wasn't until it was clear that he wasn't actually agreeing to anything and that this was a legitimate problem and that she learned what the process was that she did file that motion. And from when I look at it, it was kind of a messy start to the case in the fact that there were several ex parte s filed. Um you know, the best procedure probably wasn't followed here and hindsight is 20/20, but nonetheless, I I think that's still different. She she filed the the motion.

[00:17:54]Um I I don't even I can't even say if she knew who the teachers were at the new school at the time that she filed that motion. But even then, in my experience with these school officials, they're not going to show up unless they do have a subpoena and you get that um advice from the their counsel.

[00:18:12]So so she filed this on the 28th and then there was a hearing on the 15th. I I still think that's there was no way for her to know when a hearing would actually be scheduled, especially since the original notice was for October 15th and then got pushed up a month. So that was just kind of unusual, I I think with the timing.

[00:18:30]>> It was unusual because the court wanted to make a decision before the child was in school for any length of time, which is how that decision is supposed to be made. It's supposed to not jerk a child out of a school system and bounce it back and forth. The court had no way of knowing which way the case was going to go, so we set it as early as possible so that we could make a decision that would not unfairly jerk the child around if a decision to the contrary was made. Uh I I think the court did everything in its power to make amends for the mess that the plaintiff created.

[00:19:05]We tried to have a hearing as quickly as possible so that neither side was prejudiced and the child was not clearly prejudiced by moving school districts.

[00:19:15]She's the one who made the unilateral decision to move the school districts without prior court intervention, which is something that just simply should not be done, period.

[00:19:27]She did it. She bears the consequences of that decision. And the consequence is there was a shorter timeline. That's not the court's fault and it's not the defendant's fault. She had every time to to gather the evidence during the summer.

[00:19:47]She didn't make a decision to go over to the Traverse City area or the forest schools area on August the 28th.

[00:19:56]She had that decision made many weeks in advance of that.

[00:20:00]So she's had plenty of time in my view to gather that evidence and to have those witnesses available ahead of time.

[00:20:07]The fact that she waited until the last minute to gather the evidence is nobody's fault but her own.

[00:20:14]So no, I I under the statute, I'm not going to give her the ability to call witnesses that she could have had previously.

[00:20:25]And see how 552.507 subsection P uh >> [snorts] >> See subsection, excuse me, subsection six says that de novo includes a de novo hearing includes a new decision based entirely on the record of previous hearing including any documentation submitted there. And that's what we're going to do. I'm going to make it on the the information that was available to the referee at that time.

[00:20:59]The court has the discretion under that statute to prohibit the party from presenting evidence that that not objected to, determine determine the referee's finding conclusive as any fact that was not objected to, and to prohibit the new introduction of new evidence or use of new witnesses absent a showing that the evidence was not available to the referee hearing. I believe that that evidence was available to prior referee hearing for all the reasons I stated on the record. So, I will grant your request for a de novo hear review. I will make that de novo review based on the information previously provided to the referee, and I'll issue my written opinion as quickly as possible thereafter.

[00:21:37]Um Defense counsel, if you prepare that second order with that ruling, I'd appreciate it. Is there anything else that we need to do today, counsel?

[00:21:48]>> I don't believe so, Your Honor.

[00:21:50]>> Thank you very much. That's all that >> Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:54]>> The hearing ends with a split result that leaves both sides partially frustrated. The plaintiff wins the procedural battle by getting the earlier order set aside, but loses the bigger evidentiary fight when the judge blocks additional testimony.

[00:22:09]All right, guys. This case proves how fast custody disputes explode once parents start making major school decisions without court approval.