Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JESSICA J. SHIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v JUSTIN J. DEPEW, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED May 15, 2007

No. 273555 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 01-030329-DM

Before: Markey, P.J., and Sawyer and Bandstra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the circuit court granting primary physical custody of the parties' minor child to defendant. The parties share legal custody of the child. We affirm the custody order but remand for reconsideration of plaintiff's child support obligation. Plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it issued an ex parte order changing physical custody from plaintiff to defendant. "An evidentiary hearing is mandated before custody can be modified, even on a temporary basis." Grew v Knox, 265 Mich App 333, 336; 694 NW2d 772 (2005). While "situations might arise in which an immediate change of custody is necessary or compelled for the best interests of the child pending a hearing with regard to permanent change of custody[,] . . . [s]uch a determination . . . can only be made after the court has considered facts established by admissible evidence . . . ." Mann v Mann, 190 Mich App 526, 533; 476 NW2d 439 (1991). That did not occur in this case. Moreover, a trial court must make specific findings of fact on each of the 12 best interest factors even when entering a temporary order that alters an existing custody order. Grew, supra at 337. The trial court did not follow this directive before the ex parte order was issued. Nonetheless, this error does not require reversal because a de novo hearing was ultimately held and the result from that hearing was not in error. Mann, supra at 533 ("Our conclusion that the trial court committed clear legal error does not . . . compel us to reverse the court's final order changing custody, because a hearing de novo was eventually held."). Plaintiff argues that the trial court's findings of fact issued after the de novo hearing in support of the change of physical custody were against the great weight of the evidence. We disagree. The relevant standard of review was set forth in Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192, 196; 614 NW2d 696 (2000):

-1-


We review the trial court's findings of fact to determine whether they are against the great weight of the evidence, the court's discretionary rulings for a palpable abuse of discretion, and questions of law for clear legal error. Under the `great weight of the evidence' standard, a trial court's findings should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. The trial court determined that "the established custodial environment has been with" plaintiff. This finding is not at issue on appeal. A modification of the established custodial environment of a child requires clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interest of the child. MCL 722.27(1)(c); Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 195; 704 NW2d 104 (2005). "To determine the best interests of children in custody cases, the trial court must consider the . . . factors of

Download JESSICA J SHIELDS V JUSTIN DEPEW.pdf

Michigan Law