Christina Marie Pennington v. Corey Alan Pennington
944 NW2d 131
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2016; judgment awarded joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Christina Pennington (mother); father initially had supervised visits and was ordered to complete parenting classes.
- January 2018 stipulated order granted father unsupervised every-other-weekend parenting time; disputes over exchanges and compliance followed and contempt proceedings were initiated.
- Late January 2018 the child reported “daddy hurt me” and mother took the child to a pediatrician; CPS and law enforcement arranged a child sexual-abuse medical exam that CPS later characterized as unsubstantiated.
- March 2018: father moved to change custody alleging mother’s mental instability; a referee ordered temporary joint physical custody and recommended a psychological evaluation of mother; the trial court’s March 27, 2018 order described proper cause/change of circumstances as shown (interim order).
- August–September 2018: father filed a renewed custody motion; a referee and the trial court awarded father primary physical custody, finding established custodial environments with both parents and that a change was in the child’s best interests.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred: (1) the March 2018 threshold finding of proper cause/change of circumstances was against the great weight of the evidence, (2) the court failed to make a fresh threshold finding before deciding the August motion, and (3) the record did not support that an established custodial environment existed with father; the appellate court vacated the later custody orders, reinstated the March 27, 2018 order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly found proper cause or a change of circumstances (March 2018) | Mother: evidence did not prove by preponderance that her actions amounted to mental illness or materially changed conditions relevant to child’s welfare | Father: mother’s conduct (pursuing medical evaluations, not supporting father–child relationship) showed a change of circumstances and concern about her mental health | Court: Reversed — March 2018 threshold finding was against the great weight of the evidence (no medical proof; CPS opinion alone insufficient) |
| Whether trial court could reach best-interest analysis on August 2018 motion without a new threshold finding | Mother: court had to determine proper cause/change of circumstances since March 2018 before reconsidering custody | Father: relied on prior (interim) March 2018 finding and continued factual developments | Court: Reversed — trial court erred by addressing best interests without a valid fresh threshold showing (March finding was erroneous and could not be relied on) |
| Whether an established custodial environment existed with father | Mother: child had lived almost exclusively with mother; father’s parenting time was limited and recent, so no established custodial environment with father | Father: father had been exercising consistent parenting time such that a custodial environment was established with both parents | Court: Reversed — no clear support that child looked to father over an appreciable time for guidance/comfort; finding of established custodial environment with father was against the great weight of the evidence |
| Remedy / Standard of proof for change | Mother: because no established custodial environment with father, change required clear and convincing evidence and was not satisfied | Father: contended preponderance standard applied (arguing custodial environments with both parents) | Court: Vacated the September 2018 and Feb. 2019 custody orders; reinstated March 27, 2018 interim order and remanded for further proceedings; emphasized proper thresholds and standards (clear-and-convincing if established custodial environment exists) |
Key Cases Cited
- 282 Mich. App. 599 (Corporan v. Henton) (proper-cause and change-of-circumstances gatekeeping explained)
- 259 Mich. App. 499 (Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer) (minor visitation disputes ordinarily insufficient to reopen custody)
- 486 Mich. 81 (Pierron v. Pierron) (established custodial environment definition and burden shifting)
- 319 Mich. App. 68 (Lieberman v. Orr) (Child Custody Act purposes — stability and minimizing unwarranted changes)
- 318 Mich. App. 568 (Bowling v. McCarrick) (statutory standard for modifying custody: proper cause or change of circumstances)
- 247 Mich. App. 1 (Foskett v. Foskett) (question of fact whether established custodial environment exists)
- 273 Mich. App. 462 (Rittershaus v. Rittershaus) (possible for custodial environment to be established with both parents)
- 447 Mich. 871 (Fletcher v. Fletcher) (trial court should consider up-to-date information on abuse allegations)
- 291 Mich. App. 17 (Shade v. Wright) (emphasis on providing a stable environment free of unwarranted custody changes)
- 282 Mich. App. 471 (McIntosh v. McIntosh) (standard for reviewing factual findings against great weight of evidence)