Casey L Shimel v. Jennifer L McKinley, 334571

Background

Parents (Shimel and McKinley) initially shared joint legal and physical custody after divorce; child alternated residences and attended different preschools near each parent.
By late 2015 the parents agreed the child should attend a single school, but disagreed which school and where the child should primarily reside.
Trial court entered an order placing the child primarily with plaintiff (Shimel) during the school year and directing attendance at Onaway Public Schools; this Court previously reversed and remanded because the change affected the child’s established custodial environment and required clear-and-convincing proof under MCL 722.23.
On remand the trial court held additional proceedings, considered the MCL 722.23 best-interest factors, and found by clear and convincing evidence that primary physical custody with Shimel was in the child’s best interests.
Defendant (McKinley) moved to disqualify the trial judge based on alleged bias related to her prior perjury conviction and other asserted grounds; the motion was denied and reviewed de novo by the chief judge without a new hearing.
Key contested findings supporting custody to Shimel included findings that McKinley coached the child and had a perjury conviction relevant to credibility and parental guidance, plus evidence of stability and the child’s positive adjustment in Shimel’s home.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judge should be disqualified for bias	Judge’s references to perjury conviction reflect legitimate credibility concerns, not bias	References to conviction and alleged connections to plaintiff’s family show prejudice warranting disqualification	Denial affirmed; no showing of deep-seated bias or procedural error in chief judge’s de novo review
Whether proper cause/change of circumstances required before modifying custody	Change to a single-school arrangement and inability to alternate residences constituted proper cause/change of circumstances	Trial court needed explicit finding of proper cause/change before modifying custody	Court found Vodvarka standards met; threshold showing satisfied and remand complied with
Whether trial court erred by not applying MCL 722.27a(7) parenting-time factors	Best-interest analysis under MCL 722.23 on remand sufficed to address parenting-time concerns	Trial court failed to expressly consider MCL 722.27a(7) factors	No error; MCL 722.27a(7) does not require formulaic recitation and MCL 722.23 consideration was adequate
Whether best-interest findings were against great weight of evidence (factors b,c,d,e,f,h,j,l)	Shimel: evidence of stability, child’s adjustment, support network, and misconduct by McKinley supported award	McKinley: trial court overemphasized perjury/single-parent status and misweighed factors	Affirmed; findings not against great weight and collectively established clear-and-convincing proof for primary custody to Shimel

Key Cases Cited

Butler v. Simmons-Butler, 308 Mich. App. 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing disqualification rulings and judge bias)
Cain v. Dep’t of Corrections, 451 Mich. 470 (Mich. 1996) (repeated adverse rulings do not prove bias absent deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)
People v. Allen, 429 Mich. 558 (Mich. 1988) (perjury and crimes involving dishonesty relevant to witness credibility)
Kubicki v. Sharpe, 306 Mich. App. 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standards of review in custody disputes and requirement to show change/proper cause)
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (definitions and proof requirements for proper cause and change of circumstances in custody modifications)
Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81 (Mich. 2010) (importance of custodial environment changes to child’s welfare)
Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich. 1994) (requirement to consider current information on remand in custody matters)
Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (sufficiency of record showing court considered child’s best interests when modifying parenting time)
Daniels v. Daniels, 165 Mich. App. 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (need for explanation of custody-factor findings)
Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (record sufficiency for appellate review of custody findings)
K & K Constr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich. App. 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court’s compliance with appellate remand instructions)