Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LAWRENCE TUCKER, Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, v TAMI H. DEVEROUX, Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellee.

UNPUBLISHED April 18, 2006

No. 266472 Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 02-001711-DC

Before: Cooper, P.J., and Cavanagh and Fitzgerald, JJ PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right an order modifying parenting time and denying his motion for change of custody or for an evidentiary hearing in this action seeking custody of the parties' minor child.1 We affirm. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by summarily denying without an evidentiary hearing plaintiff's postjudgment motion for change of custody of the minor child. We disagree. This Court applies three standards of review in custody appeals: "all custody orders must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court's findings [of fact] were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue. MCL 722.28." Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 194; 704 NW2d 104 (2005) (citation omitted). A trial court commits clear legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. Id., p 194 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The critical consideration in a custody dispute is the child's best interests, and the Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.21 delineates the twelve factors that bear on the best interest assessment: (a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

1

Ashleigh, aged 3

Download LAWRENCE TUCKER V TAMI H DEVEROUX.pdf

Michigan Law