Calo v. Calo

While I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in taking testimony prior to *755the expiration of the six-month waiting period, contrary to MCL 552.9f; MSA 25.89(6), I believe the error was harmless. The purpose of the statute is to "afford an opportunity to the parties to consider their responsibilities toward their children and to effect a reconciliation if possible”. Linn v Linn, 341 Mich 668, 672; 69 NW2d 147 (1955). See, also, Falconer v Falconer, 330 Mich 532, 534; 48 NW2d 158 (1951). Thus, had plaintiff contested the grant of the divorce itself, one could argue that the policy…