Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

SHARON P. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CURT D. GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 5, 2012

No. 305889 Livingston Circuit Court LC No. 07-040094-DM

Before: OWENS, P.J., and TALBOT and METER, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this divorce case, defendant appeals the trial court's order adopting a Friend of the Court referee recommendation awarding plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child. We reverse and remand. In a child custody case, this Court reviews findings of fact under the great weight of the evidence standard, discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion, and questions of law for clear error. McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 125; 580 NW2d 485 (1998). On appeal, all custody determinations must be affirmed unless the trial court's findings 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). A trial court's factual findings are against the great weight of the evidence if they clearly preponderate in the opposite direction. Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich App 353, 363; 683 NW2d 250 (2004). The parties married on April 11, 2000, and plaintiff filed for divorce on October 29, 2007. Plaintiff sought sole physical custody and joint legal custody of the parties' minor daughter, Grace. The parties placed a settlement on the record, and the trial court entered a judgment of divorce. The trial court awarded the parties joint legal custody of Grace, yet no physical custody determination was made; instead, the parties were ordered to cooperate and participate with a parenting time coordinator (PTC). Several months later, plaintiff moved for modification of custody, seeking sole legal and physical custody of Grace. Defendant moved to provide after-school care for Grace when plaintiff was not available during her parenting time; for the right of first refusal; to enforce provisions of the judgment of divorce with regard to joint legal custody; for expanded parenting -1-

time; and for a specific parenting schedule. A hearing was held on the motions before a family court referee. Plaintiff moved for the custody hearing pursuant to MCL 722.27(1)(c), which authorizes a court to "[m]odify or amend its previous [custody] judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances...." The goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances. And, a trial court may modify a custody award only if the moving party first establishes proper cause or a change of circumstances. Accordingly, a party seeking a change in the custody of a child is required, as a threshold matter, to first demonstrate to the trial court either proper cause or a change of circumstances. If a party fails to do so, the trial court may not hold a child custody hearing. Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich App 599, 603

Download SHARON P GRIFFIN V CURT D GRIFFIN.pdf

Michigan Law