Frowner v. Smith
296 Mich. App. 374
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Davion Frowner, born 1999 to Diane Frowner and Lamonte Smith, never married; Davion lived with his mother after birth.
- Smith acknowledged paternity in 2000 and began paying child support.
- Diane died in 2007; maternal grandparents Herbert and Deborah Frowner took Davion into their home and petitioned to be guardians.
- 2008 consent order provided joint legal custody with Davion’s primary residence with the Frowners and Smith paying support.
- In 2009 Smith moved to change custody; record of the motion is incomplete; a circuit court referee recommended denial based on lack of change of circumstances.
- At the de novo hearing, the court conditioned any custody review on a showing of proper cause or change in circumstances and ultimately denied Smith’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by conditioning a custody hearing on proper cause/change in circumstances | Smith argues the presumption in favor of a natural parent requires an evidentiary hearing | Frowners maintain the established environment requires proper cause/change to review custody | Yes, the court erred; presumption favors Smith and required an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the parental presumption defeats the third-party custodial environment as the baseline | Smith asserts the presumption should control over Vodvarka-based barriers | Frowners rely on established custodial environment as barrier to modification | Yes, presumption in favor of the parent controls and Vodvarka does not bar the hearing |
| Whether a parent’s voluntary relinquishment of custody affects his fundamental liberty interest | Smith’s stipulation to the 2008 order should not penalize his custody rights | N/A | Yes, voluntary relinquishment does not extinguish the parent’s rights; cannot be penalized for seeking custody |
| What remedy and standard apply on remand | N/A | N/A | Remand for best-interests hearing; Frowners must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Davion’s best interests require custody with them; deny costs and fees at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (reaffirmed due-process parent rights and the traditional presumption favoring fit parents)
- In re Rood, 483 Mich 73 (2009) (establishes parental liberty interests and constitutional foundation for custody claims)
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003) (proper-cause/change standard; role of presumption in custody cases)
- Heltzel v. Heltzel, 248 Mich App 1 (2001) (presumption against third-party custodial environment when a fit parent seeks custody)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich 247 (2009) (reaffirms Heltzel and prioritizes parent presumption over third-party environment)
- Liebert v. Derse, 309 Mich 495 (1944) (best interests principle; cannot deprive a parent absent unsuitability)
- Speers v. Speers, 108 Mich App 543 (1981) (encourages parental involvement and opposes penalties for temporarily relinquishing custody)
- Theroux v. Doerr, 137 Mich App 147 (1984) (support for permissive practices respecting temporary custody arrangements)