in Re Guardianship of Raegan Cori Galbraith
336095
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Two minor children (ages ~7 and 4) lost their mother in an automobile accident; father Nicholas Galbraith (defendant) acknowledged paternity but was incarcerated (10‑year sentence) at relevant times.
- Maternal grandfather Thomas J. Block (plaintiff) sought custody; paternal grandmother Sharon Giles also sought guardianship; temporary guardians were initially appointed to several relatives.
- Plaintiff filed a circuit‑court custody complaint under the Child Custody Act (CCA) requesting sole custody; defendant sought a limited guardianship with his mother while incarcerated.
- At an August 26, 2016 hearing the trial court appointed Block and Giles co‑guardians and later entered an order awarding joint legal custody to plaintiff and defendant but expressly stated it made "no finding pursuant to the Child Custody Act."
- Defendant moved for reconsideration; the court denied it, explaining it intended to avoid creating a custody finding that would trigger modification thresholds under the CCA.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court committed legal error by failing to apply the CCA’s best‑interest analysis and parental presumption before awarding custody.
Issues
| Issue | Block's Argument | Galbraith/Giles' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could award joint legal custody without applying the Child Custody Act best‑interest factors | The court’s custody allocation need not be governed by CCA because it was entered in a guardianship proceeding | The custody dispute is governed by the CCA and the court must apply its mandates | The court erred: CCA governs and the court must consider and explicitly find on MCL 722.23 factors before awarding custody |
| Whether the parental presumption must be applied when a parent disputes custody with a third party | Parental presumption can be sidestepped by guardianship labeling and factual circumstances (e.g., incarceration) | Parental presumption applies and must be given weight unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence | The court failed to apply the parental presumption required by MCL 722.25(1); error necessitates reversal/remand |
| Whether failure to make reviewable best‑interest findings warrants remand | The court had practical reasons (to preserve father’s future rights) for avoiding CCA findings | Avoiding CCA findings cannot substitute for statutorily required analysis and findings | Reversed and remanded for a new custody hearing complying with the CCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey v. Harvey, 470 Mich. 186 (2004) (trial court must resolve custody disputes under the Child Custody Act and in child's best interests)
- Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (2001) (failure to consider MCL 722.23 factors and make reviewable findings requires remand)
- Heltzel v. Heltzel, 248 Mich. App. 1 (2001) (strong presumption that parental custody serves child's best interests in disputes with third persons)
- Spires v. Bergman, 276 Mich. App. 432 (2007) (trial court must consider all MCL 722.23 factors and state findings and conclusions for each)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich. 247 (2009) (trial court must enforce parental presumption in custody disputes)