Gagnon v. Glowacki
295 Mich. App. 557
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Unmarried plaintiff and defendant share a son born Sept 19, 2005; custody is joint legal and joint physical, with the child primarily living with plaintiff in Plymouth and defendant in Farmington Hills (married with an additional child).
- Plaintiff’s grandmother’s home in Plymouth served as the child’s residence; plaintiff faced financial difficulties including vehicle repossession and mortgage payments; she relied on child support and public assistance, limiting work.
- Defendant has a strong bond with the child, provides transportation and care during his parenting time, and would be affected by any relocation that impacts weekday access.
- Plaintiff seeks to move the child to Windsor, Ontario, citing family ties, a job offer, available childcare, and transportation, with plans for schooling there.
- On Aug 30, 2010 plaintiff filed to change domicile from Plymouth to Windsor; the trial court granted the motion, finding the move warranted and that the established custodial environment would not be affected, with a revised parenting-time schedule.
- The February 8, 2011 order required transportation arrangements across the border; no best-interest factors were analyzed because the court found no change in the established custodial environment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 722.31(4) was applied correctly from the child’s perspective | Plaintiff | Defendant | Not a reversible error; court used proper standard with child-focused analysis. |
| Whether the trial court’s findings on MCL 722.31(4) were supported by the evidence | Plaintiff’s move improves quality of life and preserves parental relationships | Move may threaten weekday access and stability | Findings not against the great weight of the evidence. |
| Whether the move would change the established custodial environment | Move would not alter ECE given scheduling protections | Cross-border travel would erode weekday access | Not changed; ECE remains with both parents. |
| Whether a best-interest analysis was required where there is no ECE change | Best interests must be considered regardless | Not required if ECE unchanged | Not required under governing Michigan authority. |
| Whether Pierron governs best-interest in change-of-domicile cases | Pierron applies to decisions where parents disagree on welfare matters | Pierron should apply to all domicile changes | Pierron does not apply;-specific statute controls; best-interest not mandatory here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576 (2004) (great weight standard for MCL 722.31(4) factors; ECE considerations)
- Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462 (2007) (relocation may improve child’s life via relocating parent’s earnings)
- Mogle v Scriver, 241 Mich App 192 (2000) (burden on movant; credibility determinations defer to trial court)
- Spire v Bergman, 276 Mich App 432 (2007) (best-interest analysis not required if ECE unchanged)
- Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (2010) (best-interest analysis limited where change does not alter ECE; court's role in impasse decisions)
- Powery v Wells, 278 Mich App 526 (2008) (change in ECE may occur if weekend time replaces weekday time)
- Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) (definition and existence of established custodial environment)
- Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339 (2009) (jurisdictional reach and enforceability of orders in cross-border context)
- Lombardo v Lombardo, 202 Mich App 151 (1993) (statutory framework guiding best-interest/decision conflicts)