Jarret T Geering v. Elizabeth May King
335794
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Parents Jarret Geering and Elizabeth King divorced in 2013 after long, contentious custody litigation; they share four children and at various times each was awarded primary parenting time.
- King’s father, Martin Robinson, and stepmother Shaney sought grandparenting time, initially intervened in 2013 and filed motions alleging they were being excluded from the children’s lives.
- Robinson filed a renewed motion for grandparenting time in February 2015 after limited contact; the parents jointly filed affidavits asserting they are fit parents and opposing the motion.
- After three day-long hearings over ~21 months, the trial court found the parents unfit (citing inconsistent discipline, communication, co-parenting, and not fostering the other parent relationship) and granted Robinson regular grandparenting time.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court’s finding that the parents were unfit was against the great weight of the evidence and that two fit parents’ joint affidavit required dismissal under MCL 722.27b(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents were "fit" so statute required dismissal of grandparenting motion | Geering/King: both are fit; they oppose grandparenting time and signed affidavits invoking MCL 722.27b(5) | Robinson: parents are unfit, so MCL 722.27b(5) does not apply and his petition survives | Court: parents are fit (Troxel standard: adequately care for children); trial court’s finding of unfitness was against great weight of evidence; dismissal required |
| Whether trial court properly exercised discretion to order grandparenting time despite parents’ objections | Geering/King: court lacked basis to override two fit parents’ joint decision | Robinson: grandparent rebutted presumption of no harm and proved best interests support visitation | Court: trial court erred; parents’ constitutional right to direct childrearing cannot be overridden absent proof parents are unfit; grandparenting order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Zawilanski v. Marshall, 317 Mich. App. 43 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and framework for grandparenting-time appeals)
- Keenan v. Dawson, 275 Mich. App. 671 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (affirmance standard for parenting/grandparenting time)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich. 1994) (findings of fact reversed only when evidence clearly preponderates otherwise)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (definition of a "fit" parent as one who adequately cares for children; parental autonomy principle)
- Brinkley v. Brinkley, 277 Mich. App. 23 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (MCL 722.27b(5) effect when two fit parents jointly oppose visitation)
- DeRose v. DeRose, 469 Mich. 320 (Mich. 2003) (state grandparenting statute constitutional issues in light of Troxel)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich. App. 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of clear legal error)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard in custody matters)