Jevon Maurice Williams v. Kay Marie Cannon, 335922

Parties married 13 years; two minor children at issue. Plaintiff filed for divorce; parties initially shared joint custody on alternating weeks.
After plaintiff obtained a PPO, an incident at a convenience store occurred where plaintiff admitted ramming defendant’s car while children were in his vehicle; plaintiff pleaded and was placed on probation.
Friend of the Court conciliator recommended awarding sole custody to plaintiff with supervised parenting time for defendant; defendant objected and a trial was held.
The trial court conducted a one-day bench trial, considered testimony (including in-chambers interviews of the minors), reviewed statutory best-interest factors, and issued a custody order awarding plaintiff sole legal and physical custody with supervised parenting time for defendant; court also ordered medical and psychological assessments for defendant and potential future reevaluation.
For property division, the trial court awarded each party their respective retirement benefits without a Sparks-factor analysis; plaintiff worked throughout the marriage while defendant was employed only during the last year.
Appeal: custody ruling affirmed; property division remanded because the trial court failed to make Sparks findings regarding marital retirement benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court improperly relied on conciliator’s recommendation, denying defendant due process	Trial court conducted full trial and made independent findings; reliance permissible	Trial court merely adopted conciliator’s recommendation without independent analysis	Affirmed: trial court performed its own best-interest analysis and did not deny due process
Whether custody award was against great weight of evidence or an abuse of discretion	Custody award supported by findings on best-interest factors favoring plaintiff	Defendant argued the court relied on conciliator and erred in weighing evidence	Affirmed: findings supported; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court erred by failing to perform Sparks analysis before awarding retirement benefits to each party	Property division was de minimis per counsel and parties retained assets in possession	Defendant argued equal retirement award was inequitable given disparity in employment during marriage	Reversed in part: remand required for trial court to articulate Sparks-factor findings regarding retirement benefits
Whether appellate court should order equal division of pensions	Plaintiff implicitly sought deference to trial court	Defendant requested equal split on appeal	Denied: appellate court remanded for trial court fact-finding rather than ordering an equal division

Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81 (2010) (standard of review for custody: affirm unless findings against great weight of evidence, palpable abuse of discretion, or clear legal error)
Shann v. Shann, 293 Mich. App. 302 (2011) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations in custody matters)
Sturgis v. Sturgis, 302 Mich. App. 706 (2013) (definition of abuse of discretion in custody context)
Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141 (1992) (factors and requirement for specific findings when dividing marital property)
McNamara v. Horner, 249 Mich. App. 177 (2002) (equitable division goal; departures from congruence must be explained)
Vander Veen v. Vander Veen, 229 Mich. App. 108 (1998) (vested retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital property subject to division)