Matthew J Rozen v. Katie M Rozen
333250
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Parties: Matthew (plaintiff) and Katie Rozen (defendant) litigated custody of their minor child after divorce; trial lasted eight days.
- Prior orders: stipulation to temporary joint legal custody (Sept 2013) and judgment of divorce awarding temporary joint legal custody and parenting time (Dec 2014); trial on permanent custody occurred Nov 2015.
- Trial evidence: infant mental-health specialist (Werth) and psychologist (Dr. Bow) observed both parents and concluded the child had attachments to both parents; parties had alternating week custodial schedule at time of trial.
- Allegations and investigations: Katie alleged domestic and child abuse by Matthew; multiple CPS investigations resulted in unsubstantiated findings and the trial court previously found the domestic abuse allegations unwarranted.
- Key concerns: court expressed concern about Katie’s mental-health-related perceptions (projecting anxiety onto child, insisting on intrusive medical/therapeutic interventions) and found those perceptions might harm the child’s relationship with Matthew.
- Disposition below: trial court awarded Matthew sole legal and physical custody and a parenting-time schedule that preserved multiple contacts between Katie and the child; Katie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Matthew's Argument | Katie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had to find proper cause / change of circumstances before trial | No — prior custody orders were temporary, so initial custody determination was permitted | Trial court erred by not finding proper cause/change before hearing | Held for Matthew: prior orders were temporary; no threshold finding required |
| Whether an established custodial environment existed with one or both parents | Child had established custodial environment with both parents (week-on/week-off, expert observations) | Trial court erred in finding custodial environment with both parents | Held for Matthew: evidence supported established custodial environment with both parents |
| Whether best-interest factors supported awarding sole custody to Matthew | Best-interest analysis (MCL 722.23) favored Matthew overall—particularly mental/physical health, capacity to meet needs, willingness to facilitate relationship | Court misweighed factors (esp. overstated Katie’s mental-health impact; some factors favored Katie) | Held for Matthew: trial court’s findings on statutory factors were not against great weight of evidence; custody change supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether legal custody and parenting-time orders were proper | Awarding Matthew sole legal custody and primary caretaking role best served cooperation and decisionmaking for child; parenting time maintained relationship with Katie | Court improperly reduced Katie’s time and erred awarding sole legal custody | Held for Matthew: award of sole legal custody and parenting-time schedule was not an abuse of discretion; Katie’s undeveloped appellate argument waived review |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (court should liberally construe Child Custody Act; review of custodial-environment and best-interest findings deferred unless evidence clearly preponderates)
- Kubicki v. Sharpe, 306 Mich. App. 525 (articulates three standards of review in custody appeals)
- Parks v. Parks, 304 Mich. App. 232 (definition of clear error)
- Maier v. Maier, 311 Mich. App. 218 (abuse-of-discretion standard in custody cases described)
- Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (threshold requirement of proper cause or change of circumstances when modifying an existing custody order)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 261 Mich. App. 353 (temporary custody orders are exception to Vodvarka threshold)
- Mogle v. Scriver, 241 Mich. App. 192 (established custodial environment can exist with both parents)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich. App. 149 (appellate deference to trial-court credibility determinations)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (types of conduct relevant to moral fitness factor)
- Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 291 Mich. App. 660 (standard for abuse of discretion in custody context)
- Nielsen v. Nielsen, 163 Mich. App. 430 (legal custody analysis focuses on parents’ ability to cooperate on major child-rearing decisions)