Jennifer Lynn Daly v. Matthew Hubert Ward
333425
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Parties divorced; in April 2014 Daly had physical custody; Ward had limited parenting time. Court increased Ward’s parenting time to four overnights/week in December 2014; divorce finalized March 2015.
- August 2015: Ward filed ex parte motion alleging Daly made repeated CPS complaints and sent the child to Ward’s home with a covert recording device; child’s therapist expressed concerns and supported a custody change.
- Trial court initially entered ex parte order granting Ward physical custody, then vacated that order and entered a replacement order suspending Daly’s unsupervised parenting time and placing the child with Ward pending a full hearing.
- After extensive evidentiary hearings, the trial court found an established custodial environment with Ward and awarded Ward physical custody; ordered supervised parenting time (later vacated and replaced by standard visitation).
- Court credited testimony that the child was thriving in Ward’s care and expert concerns about Daly’s attempts to alienate the child; multiple CPS referrals involving Daly were unsubstantiated.
- The court also calculated child support from the time the child was in Ward’s care and offset Daly’s support obligations by Ward’s arrearages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether child had an established custodial environment with Ward | Daly: trial court erred because custody was changed improperly by ex parte order | Ward: child lived with him since Aug 2015 and exhibited bonding and reliance on him | Court: affirmed—environment analysis focuses on child’s circumstances regardless of how created; finding not against great weight of evidence |
| Whether supervised parenting time order was erroneous | Daly: supervised parenting time was improper | Ward: supervisory order was warranted given concerns about Daly’s conduct | Court: moot on appeal because trial court vacated the supervised-order and set standard visitation; not reviewed |
| Whether trial court’s best-interest findings were against great weight of evidence | Daly: several statutory factors were wrongly decided in Ward’s favor | Ward: evidence (school progress, expert testimony, CPS history) supported findings | Court: affirmed—findings that certain factors favored Ward were supported and not against great weight of the evidence |
| Child support calculation and due-process argument | Daly: trial court erred by ordering her to pay support from Aug 2015 and failed to account for Ward’s arrearages | Ward: court offset Daly’s obligations by Ward’s arrearage and support was for child’s benefit from the time child was in Ward’s care | Court: affirmed—trial court accounted for arrearages and, reviewing unpreserved due-process claim for plain error, did not plainly err in calculating support from when child was in Ward’s care |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (2010) (standard for changing custody when custodial environment established)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) (definition of established custodial environment)
- Hayes v. Hayes, 209 Mich App 385 (1995) (established custodial environment focus is child’s circumstances, not how environment arose)
- Fisher v. Fisher, 276 Mich App 424 (2007) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion; support is for benefit of the child)
- Ewald v. Ewald, 292 Mich App 706 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Rivette v. Rose-Molina, 278 Mich App 327 (2008) (preservation and plain-error review principles)
- People v. Kimble, 470 Mich 305 (2004) (issue preservation requirement)