Mitchell v. Mitchell
296 Mich. App. 513
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Married in 1991, two children born 2003 and 2006; divorced March 30, 2009 with joint custody rights.
- Six months post-divorce, defendant moved to Texas with the children and began dating Smith; plaintiff sought a background check on Smith for child safety.
- Trial court ordered disclosure of Smith’s information to the Friend of the Court; defendant and Smith refused.
- A December 29, 2010 hearing ordered Smith’s information to be provided for a background check; defendant and Smith again resisted.
- February 15, 2011 order temporarily granted plaintiff physical custody; Mitchell v Mitchell, was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Child Custody Act; trial court later held a two-day evidentiary hearing and issued a custody-modification order.
- Court affirmed the trial court’s modification to place plaintiff with physical custody during the school year, and to limit defendant’s parenting time pending Smith’s background check.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proper cause or change of circumstances existed before modifying custody | Plaintiff contends proper cause was established by defendant’s noncompliance and safety concerns | Defendant contends no separate proper-cause finding was required before review | Yes; proper cause found pre-modification based on conduct and safety concerns |
| Whether the modification violated the great weight of the evidence | Plaintiff argues evidence supports modification in children's best interests | Defendant argues evidence favored continued custody without modification | No; findings supported modification and best-interests determination |
| Whether conditioning defendant’s parenting time on Smith’s information was proper | Plaintiff supports conditional limitations to ensure child safety | Defendant argues conditioning based on background check was improper | Yes; court-validly limited parenting time pending disclosure |
| Whether the trial judge should be disqualified for indignation bias | Defendant alleges bias against her | Defendant fails to show bias or disqualification grounds | No; judge not disqualified; no demonstrated bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (Mich. App. 2003) (proper-cause standard for custody modification; evidentiary necessity varies)
- Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (Mich. 2010) (clear and convincing standard when establishing an established custodial environment)
- Parent v Parent, 282 Mich App 152 (Mich. App. 2009) (best-interest considerations; modification standard)
- Corporan v Henton, 282 Mich App 599 (Mich. App. 2009) (proper-cause/change-of-circumstances analysis; remand guidance)
- Powery v Wells, 278 Mich App 526 (Mich. App. 2008) (burden-shifting in custody modification; strict standard if custodial environment existing)
- Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462 (Mich. App. 2007) (consideration of statutory best-interest factors in modification)