clear and convincing evidence standard in Michigan

2016As discussed in Heid v AAASulewski, 209 Mich App 587, 594 ; 532 NW2d 205 (1995), “[W]e are unwilling to conclude that mathematical equality on the statutory factors necessarily amounts to an evidentiary standoff that precludes a party from satisfying the clear and convincing standard of proof.” The Court further stated: We disapprove the rigid application of a mathematical formulation that equality or near equality on the statutory factors prevents a party from satisfying a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.

2016As discussed in Heid v AAASulewski, 209 Mich App 587, 594 ; 532 NW2d 205 (1995), “[W]e are unwilling to conclude that mathematical equality on the statutory factors necessarily amounts to an evidentiary standoff that precludes a party from satisfying the clear and convincing standard of proof.” The Court further stated: We disapprove the rigid application of a mathematical formulation that equality or near equality on the statutory factors prevents a party from satisfying a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.

2025We are duty-bound to examine all the criteria in the ultimate light of the child’s best interests.” [McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 130 , 580 NW2d 485 (1998), quoting Heid v AAASulewski (After Remand), 209 Mich App 587, 596 ; 532 NW2d 205 (1995).] A trial court “need not give equal weight to all the factors, but may consider the relative weight of the factors as appropriate to the circumstances.” Sinicropi v Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149, 184 ; 729 NW2d 256 (2006).

2025This Court has “disapprove[d] the rigid application of a mathematical formulation that equality or near equality on the statutory factors prevents a party from satisfying a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“The clear and convincing evidence standard is the most demanding standard applied in civil cases . . . .” In re ASF, 311 Mich App 420, 429 ; 876 NW2d 253 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2024“The clear and convincing evidence standard is the most demanding standard applied in civil cases . . . .” In re ASF, 311 Mich App 420, 429 ; 876 NW2d 253 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2025“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard is the most demanding standard applied in civil cases . . . .” In re Conservatorship of Brody, 321 Mich App 332, 337 ; 909 NW2d 849 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025“The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard is the most demanding standard applied in civil cases . . . .” In re Conservatorship of Brody, 321 Mich App 332, 337 ; 909 NW2d 849 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025This Court has stated, “We disapprove [of] the rigid application of a mathematical formulation that equality or near equality on the statutory factors prevents a party from satisfying a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 130 ; 580 NW2d 485 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025This Court has stated, “We disapprove [of] the rigid application of a mathematical formulation that equality or near equality on the statutory factors prevents a party from satisfying a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof.” McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 130 ; 580 NW2d 485 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 472 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015).

2016Boonstra 1 I note that the trial court in Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015), upon which the majority relies, applied a clear and convincing evidence standard, and this Court affirmed.

2026See also Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich App 353, 361 ; 683 NW2d 250 (2004) (stating that where an established custodial environment exists, the court is required to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard regardless of whether it is making an initial custody determination or modifying a previous custody order).

2024MCL 722.27(1)(c) states that a trial court “shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.” See also Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich 353 , 361; 683 NW2d 250 (2004) (stating that where an established custodial environment exists, the court is required to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard regardless of whether it is making an initial custody determination or modifying a previous custody

2023If the proposed change does not change the custodial environment, however, the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests. [Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 23 ; 805 NW2d 1 (2010) (citations omitted).] The clear and convincing evidence standard “also applies when there is an established custodial environment with both parents.” Foskett, 247 Mich App at 6 .

2023If the proposed change does not change the custodial environment, however, the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests. [Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17, 23 ; 805 NW2d 1 (2010) (citations omitted).] The clear and convincing evidence standard “also applies when there is an established custodial environment with both parents.” Foskett, 247 Mich App at 6 .

2019Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 472 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015).

2016Boonstra 1 I note that the trial court in Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404 ; 873 NW2d 596 (2015), upon which the majority relies, applied a clear and convincing evidence standard, and this Court affirmed.

2018In re England, 314 Mich App 245, 253 ; 887 NW2d 10 (2016). -7- Before a trial court may terminate a respondent’s parental rights to an Indian child, the court must find that at least one state statutory ground for termination of parental rights in MCL 712A.19b(3) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and must also make findings under the ICWA that active efforts were made to avoid the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts were unsuccessful. 25 USC 1912(d) sets out the active efforts requirement, and provides: Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or term

2018In re England, 314 Mich App 245, 253 ; 887 NW2d 10 (2016). -7- Before a trial court may terminate a respondent’s parental rights to an Indian child, the court must find that at least one state statutory ground for termination of parental rights in MCL 712A.19b(3) was proven by clear and convincing evidence, and must also make findings under the ICWA that active efforts were made to avoid the breakup of the Indian family, and that those efforts were unsuccessful. 25 USC 1912(d) sets out the active efforts requirement, and provides: Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or term

2018"When a statute fails to state the standard that probate courts are to use to establish a particular *393 fact, the default standard in civil cases-preponderance of the evidence-applies." Id . at 409, 909 N.W.2d 289 ; see also Mayor of Cadillac v. Blackburn , 306 Mich. App. 512 , 522, 857 N.W.2d 529 (2014) ("Further, because the statute does not state the quantum of proof necessary ... , the default standard in civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence, applies.").

2018“When a statute fails to state the standard that probate courts are to use to establish a particular fact, the default standard in civil cases—preponderance of the evidence—applies.” Id. at 409 ; see also Mayor of Cadillac v Blackburn, 306 Mich App 512, 522 ; 857 NW2d 529 (2014) (“Further, because the statute does not state the quantum of proof necessary . . ., the default standard in civil cases, the preponderance of the evidence, applies.”).

2015Id. at 86 .

2015In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013).

2015The Supreme Court summarized the clear-and-convincing evidence standard: The clear and convincing evidence standard is “the most demanding standard applied in civil cases . . ..” This showing must “ ‘produce 0 in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the fact-finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’ ” [Id. at 265 (citations omitted; alterations in original).] The Supreme Court concluded

2015It explained, “Although a fit parent is presumed to act in his or her child’s best interests, a court need give the parent’s decision only a ‘presumption of validity’ or ‘some weight.’ That is precisely what MCL 722.25(1) does when it requires clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.” Id.

1980This Court is required to review de novo the record in a custody case and to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless we find that it is against the great weight of the evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, or results from clear legal error on a major issue, MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8), Bahr v Bahr, 60 Mich App 354 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), Berman v Berman, supra. Failure to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard was clear legal error on the major issue of burden of proof.

1978"So an order may be entered granting the defendant husband the permanent custody of the three children.” This Court is required to review de novo the record in a custody case, and to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless we find that it is against the great weight of the evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion or resulted from clear legal error on a major issue, MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8), Bahr v Bahr, 60 Mich App 354 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), Berman v Berman, supra. Failure to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard was clear legal error on the major issue of burden of proof.

1980This Court is required to review de novo the record in a custody case and to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless we find that it is against the great weight of the evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, or results from clear legal error on a major issue, MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8), Bahr v Bahr, 60 Mich App 354 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), Berman v Berman, supra. Failure to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard was clear legal error on the major issue of burden of proof.

1980This Court is required to review de novo the record in a custody case and to affirm the trial court’s judgment unless we find that it is against the great weight of the evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, or results from clear legal error on a major issue, MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8), Bahr v Bahr, 60 Mich App 354 ; 230 NW2d 430 (1975), Berman v Berman, supra. Failure to apply the clear and convincing evidence standard was clear legal error on the major issue of burden of proof.

2025“Above all, custody disputes are to be resolved in the child’s best interests.” Eldred v Ziny, 246 Mich App 142, 150 ; 631 NW2d 748 (2001).

2025“Above all, custody disputes are to be resolved in the child’s best interests.” Eldred v Ziny, 246 Mich App 142, 150 ; 631 NW2d 748 (2001).

2024Utrera, 281 Mich App at 9 . -3- B.

2023If the trial court concludes “there [is] no established custodial environment,” a “change in custody [is] justified if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995).

2023If the trial court concludes “there [is] no established custodial environment,” a “change in custody [is] justified if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Hayes v Hayes, 209 Mich App 385, 388 ; 532 NW2d 190 (1995).