15 N.W.3d 204
Mich.2024Background:
- Andrew and Colleen Sabatine separated, with Colleen moving with the parties’ two children from Traverse City to Fenton, Michigan (about 170 miles away) without Andrew’s knowledge.
- Colleen unilaterally changed the children's doctor and school enrollment; divorce proceedings were initiated soon after the move.
- In January 2021, the trial court issued a temporary custody order: joint legal custody, Colleen with primary physical custody, Andrew with parenting time mostly every other weekend and limited summer weeks (approx. 69 overnights/year).
- After evidentiary hearings, the trial court entered a divorce judgment incorporating a similar arrangement, finding established custodial environments (ECEs) with both parents and determining the proposed schedule would not modify the ECEs.
- Both parties appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the new order did change the ECE and remanded to apply a higher evidentiary standard.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s custody order based on trial court deference and focusing on circumstances at the time of custody determination.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the custody order changed the children’s established custodial environments | The order did not substantially alter ECEs; both parents had ECEs at time of judgment. | The new schedule significantly reduced plaintiff’s time, changing the ECE. | No change to ECEs; trial court correct to use preponderance of evidence standard. |
| Proper temporal focus for determining ECE | The relevant ECE is at time of the custody decision, not pre-separation. | Focus should be on conditions before defendant's move and separation. | ECE is determined at time of custody decision; pre-separation is relevant only if still extant. |
| Appellate review standard for custody determinations | Trial court findings get deference under MCL 722.28; only reversed for certain errors. | Supported reversal due to allegedly improper legal standard below. | Deferential standard applies; appellate court erred by not deferring to trial court findings. |
| Appropriate evidentiary standard for modifying ECE | Preponderance standard applies if no ECE change. | Clear and convincing evidence required since ECE changed. | Preponderance standard was correct as there was no substantial ECE change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Baker, 411 Mich 567 (Mich. 1981) (defining established custodial environment and emphasizing stability in child custody determinations)
- Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (Mich. 2010) (distinguishing evidentiary standards and frameworks for changes affecting ECE)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (Mich. 1994) (appellate deference to trial court findings in custody matters)
- Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishing between parenting time modification and custody change)