Eickelberg v. Eickelberg
309 Mich. App. 694
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parties: Meggan Eickelberg (plaintiff) and Ethan Eickelberg (defendant) divorced in 2010; joint legal custody, plaintiff awarded physical custody; original children’s residence was Clinton Township.
- After filing, defendant moved first to Perry, MI, then to Marshall, MI (≈126 miles from Clinton Township); defendant asserted the Marshall move was job-related (Army lieutenant).
- A parenting coordinator had been appointed post-divorce due to communication issues; plaintiff sought termination of the coordinator in April 2013.
- Defendant moved to change the parenting-time exchange location and eliminate Wednesday evening midweek visits (offering extra summer time instead) because of his move to Marshall; the trial court granted those requests and denied termination of the coordinator.
- Plaintiff argued the trial court misapplied MCL 722.31(1)’s 100-mile restriction (focusing on defendant’s prior residence rather than the child’s legal residence at commencement of the action) and asked the court to evaluate the move under MCL 722.31(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper reference point for MCL 722.31(1)’s 100-mile rule | 100-mile measure runs from the child’s legal residence at commencement of the action (Clinton Township) | Trial court should measure move distance from defendant’s immediate prior residence (Perry) | Court held statute’s plain language requires measuring from the child’s legal residence at commencement of the action |
| Whether defendant needed court approval to move to Marshall | Move to Marshall (>100 miles from Clinton Township) required plaintiff’s consent or court approval under MCL 722.31 | Move did not require approval because Marshall was <100 miles from defendant’s prior residence (Perry) | Move required consent/approval because Marshall is >100 miles from the child’s legal residence at commencement of the action |
| Standard and steps for review of the move | Court must apply MCL 722.31(4) D’Onofrio factors and follow the multi-step analysis before modifying custody/parenting time | Trial court properly modified parenting time without applying those statutory factors | Court vacated and remanded, directing application of MCL 722.31(4) and the Rains four-step framework |
| Whether best-interest (MCL 722.23) analysis is required | If move would change established custodial environment, best-interest factors must be proven by clear and convincing evidence | Not addressed as primary by trial court | Court held that if custodial environment would be altered, best-interest factors under MCL 722.23 must be proven by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Burba v. Burba, 461 Mich. 637 (statutory interpretation; standard of review for questions of law)
- Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers, 278 Mich. App. 287 (plain-meaning construction of custody statutes)
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich. App. 576 (application of MCL 722.31 factors and standard when parent moves)
- Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich. App. 313 (articulated the four-step approach for change-of-domicile analysis)
- D’Onofrio v. D’Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super. 200 (origin of the multi-factor test referenced in MCL 722.31(4))