Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


SHERRY LYN HARRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED January 7, 2000

MARK ALLEN HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 219198 Ingham Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-003804 TM

Before: Talbot, P.J., and Gribbs and Meter, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from an order changing custody of the parties' daughter to plaintiff. We affirm. Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to change venue from Ingham County to Muskegon County. We disagree. The denial of a motion for change of venue is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Vermilya v Carter Crompton Site Development Contractors, Inc, 201 Mich App 467, 471; 506 NW2d 580 (1993). A finding is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court, based on all the evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Port Huron v Amoco Oil Co, 229 Mich App 616, 636; 583 NW2d 215 (1998). MCR 3.204(A) provides that an action under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq., must be filed in the circuit court for the "county in which the minor resides." Venue is determined at the time an action is filed. Omne Financial, Inc v Shacks Inc, 226 Mich App 397, 405; 573 NW2d 641 (1997); Kubiak v Steen, 51 Mich App 408, 411-414; 215 NW2d 195 (1974). The crux of defendant's argument is that a child cannot have a domicile separate from her parents, and therefore the time when the child was living in Lansing with defendant's friends should have been treated as time during which she resided in Muskegon County, where her father was incarcerated. In Kubiak , supra at 413, this Court rejected the proposition that a minor automatically has the same residence or domicile as her parents. Moreover, this Court distinguished the term "reside" as used in -1

the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq., from the concept of "domicile," and held that courts should focus on the place where the minor actually lives. Id. at 413-414. In the present case, defendant testified that his incarceration ended on June 16, 1998. Defense counsel represented that defendant took the child from his friends' house to Muskegon the same day. Plaintiff filed her complaint on the morning of June 17, 1998, at a time in which the child would likely have been in Muskegon County for less than a day. These facts support the trial court's finding that the child had not yet established a residence in Muskegon County. We find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that venue was proper in Ingham County. Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in not finding that the child's established custodial environment was with defendant. We find no error. In a child custody case, we review the trial court's findings of fact under the "great weight of the evidence" standard, the court's discretionary rulings for an abuse of discretion, and questions of law under the clearly erroneous standard. MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8); McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 125; 580 NW2d 485 (1998). A trial court's findings regarding the existence of an established custodial environment and with respect to each custody factor should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 879; 526 NW2d 889 (1994); Ireland v Smith, 214 Mich App 235, 242; 542 NW2d 344 (1995). The criteria for determining a child's best interests in a child custody case are contained in MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3). However, whether an established custodial environment exists is a question of fact that the trial court must address before it makes a determination regarding the child's best interests. Overall v Overall, 203 Mich App 450, 455; 512 NW2d 851 (1994). The court must make a specific finding regarding the existence of a custodial environment. If the court fails to do so, this Court will remand for such a finding. Underwood v Underwood, 163 Mich App 383, 389; 414 NW2d 171 (1987).1 Defendant claims that the trial court erred because the testimony at trial clearly established the existence of an established custodial environment. The trial court found: First, I find that this child has not lived in a stable, satisfactory environment in years. It is undisputed that her father moved approximately 18 times. It is undisputed that her father went to

Download SHERRY LYN HARRINGTON V MARK ALLEN HARRINGTON.pdf

Michigan Law