Jennifer Lynn Daly v. Matthew Hubert Ward
333425
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Daly sought to modify custody/parenting time involving her child; an ex parte order was entered August 10, 2015.
- The August 10 order was titled "Ex Parte Order Regarding Custody" and resulted in custody being placed with defendant Matthew Ward, though the judge said she intended to alter parenting time only.
- No evidentiary hearing was held before the ex parte custody change; a motion hearing occurred nine days later (August 19, 2015).
- Because time elapsed after the ex parte order and before a hearing, the child’s established custodial environment shifted to Ward.
- Daly argued her due‑process rights were violated by the interim custody change without an evidentiary hearing and that the trial court never properly rectified the error.
- The Court of Appeals majority affirmed the lower court’s ruling; Judge Ronayne Krause concurred in the result but wrote separately that Daly’s due‑process rights had been violated and urged legislative or Supreme Court action to prevent similar problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custody was changed without required evidentiary hearing | Daly: ex parte August 10 order effected a custody change without hearing, violating law and due process | Ward: custody shift created an established custodial environment; subsequent analysis should treat Ward as custodian | Court: ex parte order resulted in custody shift; evidentiary hearing requirement was not satisfied but remedy limited by existing law |
| Whether a change in the established custodial environment triggers Vodvarka framework | Daly: any change to established environment requires Vodvarka analysis and clear/convincing evidence | Ward: once environment established with Ward, it doesn’t matter how it was created | Court: Vodvarka framework applies when established custodial environment changes; established environment existed with Ward |
| Whether delay between ex parte order and hearing affected fairness/due process | Daly: delay caused circumstances to change, depriving her of due process because the court evaluated a different status quo | Ward: established environment with Ward justified outcome regardless of how created | Concurrence: Judge Krause agrees due process was violated by delay, but majority lacked remedy under current law |
| Whether appellate court could provide relief for due‑process violation | Daly: appellate reversal or remedy appropriate due to constitutional violation | Ward: appellate relief unwarranted because established environment doctrine controls | Court: affirmed lower court; concurrence notes concern but acknowledges no available legal remedy under current precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (application of proper‑cause/change‑of‑circumstances standard for custody modification)
- Pierron v. Pierron, 282 Mich App 222 (Child Custody Act’s goal to protect established custodial environments)
- Heid v. AASulewski (After Remand), 209 Mich App 587 (protecting established custodial environment from removal without clear and convincing evidence)
- Hayes v. Hayes, 209 Mich App 385 (established custodial environment may arise regardless of how created)
- Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (Vodvarka framework appropriate when established custodial environment changes)