Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal from a Michigan Court of Appeals judgment concerning an order affecting a child’s established custodial environment. The Court emphasized that trial courts must comply with MCL 722.27(1)(c), including the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement, before entering an order that alters such an environment. The Court noted that erroneous interim orders may have lasting and effectively irreversible consequences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal from the Michigan Court of Appeals' April 18, 2017 judgment.
- Whether a trial court may enter an ex parte interim order that alters a child's established custodial environment without first making the findings and applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement of MCL 722.27(1)(c).
Holdings
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed.
- MCL 722.27(1)(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that a change is in the child's best interests before a trial court may modify a prior judgment or enter a new order that changes the child's established custodial environment. This requirement applies even when the order does not expressly state that it is altering the established custodial environment, including an ex parte interim order that has that effect.
Key quotations
“The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.”
“A court “shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.””
“Importantly, MCL 722.27(1)(c) does not limit this heightened evidentiary burden to orders that expressly alter a child’s established custodial environment.”
Factual background
The opinion concerns an order affecting a child's established custodial environment, including the possibility of an ex parte interim parenting-time or custody order. The court emphasized that changing the established custodial environment can deprive a child and a parent of substantial time together and can affect the evidentiary burdens at a later custody hearing. The specific underlying factual record is not described in the order.
Procedural history
The matter arose from a Jackson County Circuit Court domestic-relations case. The Michigan Court of Appeals entered a judgment on April 18, 2017. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded that the presented question warranted review, but emphasized that trial courts must comply with MCL 722.27(1)(c) before entering an order that alters an established custodial environment.