next step analysis in Michigan

2023Furthermore, “[a]n established custodial environment may exist with both parents where a child looks to both the mother and the father for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” Id. at 707 . -4- In Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010), our Supreme Court discussed the next step of the analysis: If the proposed change would modify the established custodial environment of the child, then the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests.

2023Furthermore, “[a]n established custodial environment may exist with both parents where a child looks to both the mother and the father for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” Id. at 707 . -4- In Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010), our Supreme Court discussed the next step of the analysis: If the proposed change would modify the established custodial environment of the child, then the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests.

2013The next step in the analysis requires that we consider the extent to which plaintiff may rebut defendants’ facially legitimate reason for its adverse action—that the board eliminated plaintiff’s position because of the county’s impending financial crisis. 3 In West, 469 Mich at 185 , a majority of this Court noted that “[t]he evidence does not show that either of the supervisors, whom plaintiff allegedly informed about the call to the police, viewed the call as a matter of any consequence.

2013The next step in the analysis requires that we consider the extent to which plaintiff may rebut defendants’ facially legitimate reason for its adverse action—that the board eliminated plaintiff’s position because of the county’s impending financial crisis. 3 In West, 469 Mich at 185 , a majority of this Court noted that “[t]he evidence does not show that either of the supervisors, whom plaintiff allegedly informed about the call to the police, viewed the call as a matter of any consequence.

2025As such, defendants owed plaintiff “a duty ‘to exercise reasonable care to protect [her] from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.’ ” Id. at 112, quoting Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609 ; 537 NW2d 185 (1995). -2- “If the plaintiff establishes that the land possessor owed plaintiff a duty, the next step in the inquiry is whether there was a breach of that duty.” Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 148.

2025As such, defendants owed plaintiff “a duty ‘to exercise reasonable care to protect [her] from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land.’ ” Id. at 112, quoting Bertrand v Alan Ford, Inc, 449 Mich 606, 609 ; 537 NW2d 185 (1995). -2- “If the plaintiff establishes that the land possessor owed plaintiff a duty, the next step in the inquiry is whether there was a breach of that duty.” Kandil-Elsayed, 512 Mich at 148.

2025Id.

2023Furthermore, “[a]n established custodial environment may exist with both parents where a child looks to both the mother and the father for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” Id. at 707 . -4- In Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010), our Supreme Court discussed the next step of the analysis: If the proposed change would modify the established custodial environment of the child, then the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests.

2021The next step in the analysis is to “determine if Michigan’s interests mandate that Michigan law be applied, despite the foreign interests.” Sutherland, 454 Mich at 286 .

2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (quotation marks omitted).1 1 In Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010), our Supreme Court touched on the next step of the analysis, explaining: If the propose

2019“These initial steps to changing custody—finding a change of circumstance or proper cause and not changing an established custodial environment without clear and convincing evidence—are intended to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (quotation marks omitted).1 1 In Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010), our Supreme Court touched on the next step of the analysis, explaining: If the propose

2016Phinney, 222 Mich App at 562-563 ; Sills, 220 Mich App 310 .

2014Czymbor’s Timber, Inc, 269 Mich App at 555 .

2008Kreiner, supra at 136 .

2007Id. at 422 n. 20, 431, 697 N.W.2d 851 .

2007Id. at 422 n 20, 431.