custody hearing in Michigan

2024The age of the child, the physical environment, and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be considered. [MCL 722.27(1)(c).] -16- “An 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.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 706 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008), The custody hearing began in December 2022, when AK was 17 months old, and concluded approximately three months later.

2024The age of the child, the physical environment, and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be considered. [MCL 722.27(1)(c).] -16- “An 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.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 706 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008), The custody hearing began in December 2022, when AK was 17 months old, and concluded approximately three months later.

2017While the officers’ personal opinions about the guilt of their subject are irrelevant to a custody analysis, those beliefs “may bear upon the custody issue if they are conveyed, by word or deed, to the individual being questioned.” Stansbury, 511 US at 325 .

2017While the officers’ personal opinions about the guilt of their subject are irrelevant to a custody analysis, those beliefs “may bear upon the custody issue if they are conveyed, by word or deed, to the individual being questioned.” Stansbury, 511 US at 325 .

2020Because defendant failed to demonstrate any proper cause or change in circumstances, the trial court was precluded from holding a custody hearing to consider the children’s best interests, id. at 508-509 ; Corporan, 282 Mich App at 603-604 .

2018That is, given that Vodvarka applies and that defendant has not alleged proper cause or a change in circumstances, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing under Vodvarka, 259 Mich App at 512 , and the trial court was precluded from holding a custody hearing to consider the children’s best interests, id. at 508-509 ; Corporan, 282 Mich App at 603 - 604 & n 2.

2024Plaintiff further opines that imposing a temporal limitation on the evidence in these circumstances would be contrary to the rationale for remanding articulated in Fletcher, 447 Mich at 889 -890: Our disposition of this case recognizes that trial courts are in a superior position to make accurate decisions concerning the custody arrangement that will be in a child’s best interests.

2011In Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 882 ; 526 NW2d 889 (1994), our Supreme Court expressly stated that “review of custody orders is not de novo.” The trial court’s failure to apply the law by not first determining whether there was an established custodial environment is clear legal error, and, according to Fletcher , we must remand unless the error is harmless.

2022See Marik, 325 Mich App at 361 ; Pierron, 486 Mich at 92 - -3- 93.

2022See Marik, 325 Mich App at 361 ; Pierron, 486 Mich at 92 - -3- 93.

2022Sinicropi, 273 Mich App at 155 .

2022Sinicropi, 273 Mich App at 155 .

2018With regard to the trial court’s credibility determinations, it has long been 2 On that note, it is somewhat telling that despite being adamant that the hearing could not continue until he was represented by counsel, defendant did not retain counsel to represent him during the nearly two-month long period that transpired between the first and second days of the custody hearing. -4- recognized that when a trial court is tasked with making factual determinations, “[g]reat weight is given to the determination of the trial judge, who is able to view the demeanor of the witness.” Storms v Storms, 1

2018With regard to the trial court’s credibility determinations, it has long been 2 On that note, it is somewhat telling that despite being adamant that the hearing could not continue until he was represented by counsel, defendant did not retain counsel to represent him during the nearly two-month long period that transpired between the first and second days of the custody hearing. -4- recognized that when a trial court is tasked with making factual determinations, “[g]reat weight is given to the determination of the trial judge, who is able to view the demeanor of the witness.” Storms v Storms, 1

2025See Kubicki v Sharpe, 306 Mich App 525, 545 ; 858 NW2d 57 (2014). -6- A. BURDEN OF PROOF “[O]nce a natural parent initiates a custody dispute with a third-party custodian, the third party . . . must . . . present evidence in support of that party’s claim that the child’s best interests are served by the continued placement of the child with that third party instead of the natural parent.” Howard, 310 Mich App at 496-497 .

2025But, “MRE 611 grants a trial court broad power to control the manner in which a trial is conducted, including the examination of witnesses.” Hartland Twp v Kucykowicz, 189 Mich App 591, 595 ; 474 NW2d 306 (1991).

2025But, “MRE 611 grants a trial court broad power to control the manner in which a trial is conducted, including the examination of witnesses.” Hartland Twp v Kucykowicz, 189 Mich App 591, 595 ; 474 NW2d 306 (1991).

2023After entering the ex parte order placing the child in Tas’s sole custody, the court was required to expeditiously conduct a custody hearing pursuant to MCL 722.27(1)(c). “[W]hile a trial court has the authority to enter an ex parte interim order concerning parenting time, see MCL 722.27a(12), it may not enter such an order if it also alters the child’s established custodial environment without first making the findings required by MCL 722.27(1)(c).” Daly v Ward, 501 Mich 897 , 898; 901 NW2d 897 (2017).

2022It is the duty of the lower court or tribunal, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court. [K & K Constr, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich App 523, 544-545 ; 705 NW2d 365 (2005) (citations omitted)] In Argel’s last appeal, a panel of this Court addressed whether the trial court properly denied Argel’s motion for a custody hearing on the ground that Argel failed to establish proper cause or a change in circumstances on the face of his motion.

2022Although our Supreme Court continued to refer to the trial court’s ability to render judgment against “the plaintiff” in MCR 2.504(B)(2), when the court rules are read together and with the goal of creating a harmonious whole, as this Court must do, see Jenson v Puste, 290 Mich App 338, 341-342 ; 801 NW2d 639 (2010), the most natural understanding is that the term “plaintiff” refers to the party who moved for a change of custody in cases involving the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction over a child’s custody.

2022Although our Supreme Court continued to refer to the trial court’s ability to render judgment against “the plaintiff” in MCR 2.504(B)(2), when the court rules are read together and with the goal of creating a harmonious whole, as this Court must do, see Jenson v Puste, 290 Mich App 338, 341-342 ; 801 NW2d 639 (2010), the most natural understanding is that the term “plaintiff” refers to the party who moved for a change of custody in cases involving the trial court’s continuing jurisdiction over a child’s custody.

2022In Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 59 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011), the Court stated: In effect, the trial court operated on the premise that because the parties were living together with the children in the marital home up to the time of the custody hearing and no custody order had been entered by the court, it was not required to address whether an established custodial environment existed.

2022In Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 59 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011), the Court stated: In effect, the trial court operated on the premise that because the parties were living together with the children in the marital home up to the time of the custody hearing and no custody order had been entered by the court, it was not required to address whether an established custodial environment existed.

2022This understanding is consistent with the fact that the law places the ultimate burden of convincing the fact-finder on the party requesting the change in custody, see Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (stating that the party requesting a change in custody has the burden to establish proper cause or a change of circumstances before the trial court may hold a custody hearing), in the same way that it places the burden on a plaintiff asserting a typical civil claim, see, e.g., Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 550 ; 443 NW2d 354 (1989) (stating that the ulti

2022This understanding is consistent with the fact that the law places the ultimate burden of convincing the fact-finder on the party requesting the change in custody, see Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 509 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (stating that the party requesting a change in custody has the burden to establish proper cause or a change of circumstances before the trial court may hold a custody hearing), in the same way that it places the burden on a plaintiff asserting a typical civil claim, see, e.g., Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 550 ; 443 NW2d 354 (1989) (stating that the ulti

2022It is the duty of the lower court or tribunal, on remand, to comply strictly with the mandate of the appellate court. [K & K Constr, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich App 523, 544-545 ; 705 NW2d 365 (2005) (citations omitted)] In Argel’s last appeal, a panel of this Court addressed whether the trial court properly denied Argel’s motion for a custody hearing on the ground that Argel failed to establish proper cause or a change in circumstances on the face of his motion.

2022When, as in this case, “a modification of custody (either by changing custody or parenting time) would change the established custodial environment of a child, the moving party must show by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child’s best interest.” Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576, 585 ; 680 NW2d 432 (2004).

2022When, as in this case, “a modification of custody (either by changing custody or parenting time) would change the established custodial environment of a child, the moving party must show by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child’s best interest.” Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576, 585 ; 680 NW2d 432 (2004).