Karista Eads v. Walter Scott
333949
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Parties had a 2012 consent judgment: joint legal custody, plaintiff (Eads/Smith) sole physical custody; parenting time arranged by the parties. A residency restriction prohibited moving the child >100 miles without compliance with MCL 722.31.
- By 2014 plaintiff accepted a nursing job in Warren and began staying part-time in Flat Rock (over 100 miles away), married, and sought to change the child’s domicile to be near her husband.
- Defendant (Scott) filed to enjoin the move or, alternatively, to modify custody; plaintiff moved for permission to change the child’s domicile.
- A referee recommended denying plaintiff’s domicile change; plaintiff objected and a full evidentiary hearing was held.
- The trial court found an established custodial environment with both parents, applied an incorrect heightened standard early in its analysis, concluded the statutory factors favored the move, then shifted to consider custody best‑interest factors and awarded continued physical custody to plaintiff with modified parenting time.
- Defendant sought reconsideration arguing the court applied the wrong legal framework and misallocated burdens; the trial court denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for proper application of the Rains four‑step framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court apply the correct legal framework and burdens for a change of domicile? | Plaintiff argued the move was proper under MCL 722.31 and the court appropriately considered factors and custody. | Defendant argued the court misapplied Rains, placed burdens on him, and prematurely resolved custody without completing the domicile analysis. | Court: Trial court committed clear legal error by not following the Rains four‑step analysis and by misplacing burdens; vacated and remanded. |
| Whether plaintiff satisfied the MCL 722.31(4) factors by the correct standard (preponderance) | Plaintiff maintained she met statutory factors supporting the domicile change. | Defendant disputed sufficiency and contended plaintiff bore the burden to show the move was permitted and in the child’s best interests when it would alter an established custodial environment. | Court: Because trial court used an incorrect procedure (applied a higher standard out of order), the record does not support resolving the merits; remand required. |
| Whether the proposed move would alter an established custodial environment, triggering a clear‑and‑convincing best‑interest showing | Plaintiff argued the move was not intended to frustrate relationship and that parenting time could be rearranged to preserve relationships. | Defendant argued the move would alter the custodial environment and thus required clear‑and‑convincing proof of best interests. | Court: Trial court failed to determine whether the move would alter an established custodial environment as required by Rains; remand necessary. |
| Whether the court could decide custody (best interests) without first completing the domicile framework | Plaintiff proceeded to custody analysis after domicile factors. | Defendant argued custody analysis was premature and burden shifted incorrectly. | Court: Trial court prematurely addressed custody and assessed best‑interest factors in defendant’s motion context rather than as required under Rains for domicile changes; legal error mandated remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich. 1994) (standard of review and appellate remand principles in custody matters)
- Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich. App. 313 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (articulating four‑step framework for change of domicile cases)
- Sulaica v. Rometty, 308 Mich. App. 568 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (review of domicile/custody standards and proper burdens)
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich. App. 576 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (discussion of interplay between MCL 722.27 and MCL 722.31 and when best‑interest analysis is required)