Jennifer Lynn Vannatter v. Kevin Allen Vannatter
355388
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Jennifer and Kevin Vannatter divorced in 2012; from 2016–2019 they shared joint legal and physical custody of two minor children on a two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off schedule.
- In late 2019 Kevin moved (with his wife, Kelly) to Arkansas and filed to change the children’s domicile and modify parenting time, alleging concerns about Jennifer’s care/education of the children and proposing the children live primarily with him during the school year.
- While the case was pending the parties stipulated to interim parenting-time terms and Kevin transported the children between states.
- After an evidentiary hearing the trial court applied the D’Onofrio factors (MCL 722.31(4)), found the move could improve quality of life, that an established custodial environment existed and would be altered, and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the move was in the children’s best interests (MCL 722.23).
- Jennifer appealed, arguing the trial court’s D’Onofrio and best-interest findings were against the great weight of the evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed change of domicile satisfies D’Onofrio factor (a) (capacity to improve quality of life) | Move primarily benefits Kevin and his wife (e.g., milder weather, recreation), not the children; no evidence of educational/medical benefits in Arkansas | Kevin and Kelly testified to better jobs, more vacation, lower cost of living, extended family and prior positive summer stays in Arkansas supporting improved quality of life | Affirmed: trial court’s finding that factor (a) favored the move was not against the great weight of the evidence |
| Whether D’Onofrio factor (b) (compliance with parenting time / motive to frustrate) supports the move | Jennifer emphasized evidence of the children spending time at her parents’ house and disputed some testimony about where weekends occurred | Trial court found Kevin largely complied with parenting time (except after his move) and no evidence showed the move was intended to frustrate visitation | Affirmed: evidence did not clearly preponderate against trial court’s finding that factor (b) did not show a motive to frustrate |
| Whether D’Onofrio factor (c) (ability to modify schedule and preserve parental relationship) permits a workable parenting-time plan | Jennifer contended the ordered parenting time (breaks, summers, some holidays) was insufficient to preserve her relationship and feared parental alienation | Kevin proposed a modified schedule with school-year residence in Arkansas and specific break/summer time for Jennifer; no evidence of likely alienation presented | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found a schedule could preserve the parental relationship |
| Whether defendant proved by clear and convincing evidence that the move is in the children’s best interests (MCL 722.23, esp. factor (b) and others) | Jennifer argued trial court misweighed factors (b), (d), (e), (h), (l), and wrongly discredited evidence about CV’s education/diagnosis and continuity with Jennifer’s household | Kevin relied on his increased availability, family support in Arkansas, past stays there, and the trial court’s credibility findings on school/attendance issues | Affirmed: trial court’s credibility findings and factor assessments were not against the great weight of the evidence; defendant met the clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich App 313 (2013) (articulates four-step framework for change-of-domicile motions under MCL 722.31(4))
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003) (standard: custody-factor findings affirmed unless evidence clearly preponderates opposite)
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Baker v. Baker, 411 Mich 567 (1981) (trial court need not comment on every matter in evidence; must consider statutory factors)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149 (2006) (trial court may weigh custody factors as appropriate)
- MacIntyre v. MacIntyre (On Remand), 267 Mich App 449 (2005) (record need only be sufficient to permit appellate review of custody findings)
- D’Onofrio v. D’Onofrio, 144 N.J. Super. 200 (1976) (origin of the D’Onofrio factors)