Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin
323 Mich. App. 110
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Parents divorced in 2013 and shared equal physical custody on a two-week on/two-week off schedule for their minor child.
- Mother (Rebekah), an active-duty Coast Guard member, moved to Illinois in 2016; father (Jason) remained in Holt, Michigan; both sought custody modifications in 2017 when the child approached school age.
- Friend of the Court recommended child reside with Jason during the school year and with Rebekah for summer; both parties objected and filed competing motions to change custody.
- Trial court found an established custodial environment with both parents, concluded the custodial environment would be altered by a change, but applied a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and awarded primary custody to Rebekah during the school year.
- Jason appealed, arguing the court should have applied the clear-and-convincing standard and should have considered Rebekah’s likely future relocation due to military service.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded: held trial court used the wrong burden (preponderance instead of clear and convincing) and erred in excluding consideration of a possible future relocation tied to active-duty status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden when proposed change would alter an established custodial environment | Jason: statute (MCL 722.27(1)(c)) requires clear-and-convincing evidence to change an established custodial environment | Rebekah/Trial Ct: because both parents bear same burden and a change was required, preponderance is appropriate | Court: Reversed — clear-and-convincing standard required when change would alter established custodial environment |
| Comparison baseline for best-interest inquiry | Jason: change must be proved by clear and convincing evidence against the status quo (established custodial environment) | Rebekah: trial court may compare parties’ proposals against each other | Court: The comparison is to the status quo; the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that changing the established custodial environment is in child’s best interests |
| Whether trial court could consider mother’s anticipated future relocation due to active-duty status | Jason: court should consider likely future relocation (not barred by statute) | Rebekah/Trial Ct: MCL 722.27(1)(c) bars consideration of absences due to active duty when a change motion is filed | Court: Reversed on this point — statute bars consideration only of a parent’s current absence due to active duty, not necessarily speculative future relocations (but weight is discretionary and often speculative) |
| Applicability of prior case law that allowed preponderance standard in some contexts | Jason: Hunter and LaFleche require clear-and-convincing where established custodial environment exists between parents | Rebekah: relies on older cases (Rummelt, Heltzel) to support preponderance when presumptions align | Court: Rummelt and Heltzel are inapposite (third-party custodian context); Hunter/LaFleche control — clear-and-convincing required between natural parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81 (Mich. 2010) (explains burden and analysis when proposed change would modify an established custodial environment)
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (defines "change of circumstances" and proper-cause thresholds)
- LaFleche v. Ybarra, 242 Mich. App. 692 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (clarifies burdens: preponderance if no established custodial environment; clear and convincing if one exists)
- Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court must consider MCL 722.23 factors applying proper burden)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich. 247 (Mich. 2009) (natural-parent constitutional interests affect burden allocation; distinguishes third-party custodian cases)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich. App. 149 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (standards of review in custody cases)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich. 1994) (trial court must consider all relevant, up-to-date information on remand)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (definition and qualities of an established custodial environment)
- Rummelt v. Anderson, 196 Mich. App. 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (older third-party custodian case; court explains limited applicability)
- Heltzel v. Heltzel, 248 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (third-party custodian context; inapposite to parent-vs-parent disputes)
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich. App. 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (change from near-equal parenting time to school-year/summer split often alters custodial environment)
- Yachcik v. Yachcik, 319 Mich. App. 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (similar principle: shifting to school-year/summer split can change custodial environment)