Maier v. Maier
311 Mich. App. 218
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Cindy Maier (plaintiff) and Daniel Maier (defendant) divorced after separation; their son JM (born 2005) was the subject of prolonged custody dispute.
- Multiple show-cause hearings and CPS complaints (filed by Cindy) occurred; CPS found each report unsubstantiated.
- In 2013 defendant filed a petition to change custody; a multi-month evidentiary hearing (seven days) followed.
- Trial court initially awarded defendant sole legal and physical custody and granted plaintiff unsupervised visitation; after a chaotic first visit the court modified visitation to require supervision pending a psychological evaluation of plaintiff.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the court failed to consider JM’s reasonable preference, erred by deciding custody before/without a psychological evaluation (and punished her failure to obtain one), and demonstrated bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to consider child’s reasonable preference | Court should have interviewed nine‑year‑old JM (per Kubicki) to ascertain preference | Court reasonably declined interview given JM’s diagnoses, prior evaluations, evidence of coaching, and trauma | Court affirmed: judge implicitly found JM unable to form a reasonable preference; record supports that finding |
| Whether deciding custody before psychological evaluation was error | Custody decision was premature; evaluation should have been considered | Psychological evaluation is one piece of evidence; trial court may weigh evidence and reach decision without it | Affirmed: psychological reports are not dispositive; failure to consider one evaluation not reversible error (McIntosh) |
| Whether the court improperly weighed plaintiff’s failure to obtain ordered evaluation | Court erred by using contempts/noncompliance as basis to weigh factors (Adams) | Noncompliance bore on parties’ mental/parenting fitness and other factors | Court acknowledged error as to two factors but deemed it harmless because multiple other factors favored defendant |
| Whether trial court showed bias in evidentiary rulings | Court unfairly excluded plaintiff’s hearsay but allowed defendant’s similar testimony | Statements admitted were non‑hearsay admissions or not outcome‑determinative; a single hearsay admission (if error) insufficient to show bias | Affirmed: no reversible bias shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich. 81 (court of appeals review standard for factual findings in custody cases)
- Shulick v. Richards, 273 Mich. App. 320 (articulating abuse‑of‑discretion standard in child custody appeals)
- Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co., 476 Mich. 372 (general discussion of "principled outcomes" abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Spalding v. Spalding, 355 Mich. 382 (historic formulation of abuse‑of‑discretion in custody context)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Supreme Court's interpretation linking Child Custody Act language to Spalding standard)
- Kubicki v. Sharpe, 306 Mich. App. 525 (requirement that court consider child’s reasonable preference)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich. App. 471 (psychological evaluations are one evidentiary piece, not dispositive)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich. App. 149 (trial court may assign relative weight to custody factors)
- Dempsey v. Dempsey, 409 Mich. 495 (party seeking custody must show some factors favor them)
- Adams v. Adams, 100 Mich. App. 1 (visitation/contempt disputes are generally not a proper basis for changing custody)
- Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (standard for reviewing parenting‑time orders)