Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

RUBY SMITH-PAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v

UNPUBLISHED December 27, 2011

URBANE BINGHAM, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 303115 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 01-150157-DS

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and WHITBECK and GLEICHER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Ruby Smith-Page, appeals as of right the trial court's order awarding custody of the minor child, Promise Bingham, to her biological father, defendant, Urbane Bingham. We affirm. This case involves the change of custody of the minor child from plaintiff, as the custodial parent, to defendant following the child's removal from plaintiff's home by the Department of Human Services (DHS) based on allegations of incidents of domestic violence occurring between plaintiff and her spouse, David Page. Following defendant's motion seeking custody of the minor child, the trial court determined that there had been a change in circumstances, that a custodial environment existed with defendant, and that the best interests of the child required that defendant be awarded custody. The trial court found six of the best interest factors favored defendant; specifically, factors (a), (d), (e), (i), (k) and (l). Both or neither party were favored on the following six factors: (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (j). Plaintiff was not favored on any factor. In matters of custody: Three standards of review are relevant to our review of a trial court's decision on a motion for change of custody. The trial court's factual findings are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard. McIntosh v McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471, 474; 768 NW2d 325 (2009). The court's factual findings are against the great weight of the evidence if the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court's discretionary

-1-

decisions, such as the award of custody. Id. Questions of law in custody matters are reviewed for clear legal error. Phillips v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000). Clear legal error exists when the trial court incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 4

Download RUBY SMITH-PAGE V URBANE BINGHAM.pdf

Michigan Law