369562
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Unmarried parents dispute custody and parenting time for their son ("ASK"), who has an autism diagnosis and special needs; litigation produced multiple trial-court orders and numerous appeals.
- In Aug. 2023 ASK was taken to a Florida ER; emergency clinicians documented anal injury and labeled the chart "Suspected Abuse." A forensic CPT examiner later found no signs of abuse; Florida DCF, Michigan CPS, and prosecutors closed their inquiries.
- Defendant obtained an ex parte temporary suspension of plaintiff’s parenting time; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court rescinded the suspension (finding defendant had not proved harm by clear and convincing evidence) but later entered parenting-time orders giving plaintiff 182.5 overnights (including one week/month in Michigan) and 38 days of makeup time.
- Trial court also ordered psychological evaluations, required $1,500 bonds for future motions, and found plaintiff in civil contempt for failing to return ASK after holiday parenting time and for violating caregiver/healthcare-notice provisions.
- Multiple appeals were consolidated. The Court of Appeals vacated the parenting-time provisions that placed recurring interstate travel burdens on the child under the law-of-the-case doctrine, affirmed most other rulings (sanctions, contempt, makeup time, bond, fees), and remanded for a new parenting-time schedule that puts travel burden on the parents, not ASK.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may order child to travel monthly to Michigan (parenting-time travel) | Plaintiff supported schedule giving him one week/month in Michigan and some Florida overnights | Defendant argued the schedule unlawfully placed travel burden on the child and conflicted with prior COA orders | Vacated travel provisions under law-of-the-case; remanded for new schedule placing travel burden on parents, not child |
| Whether trial court erred denying defendant’s motion to suspend parenting time based on abuse allegations | Argued suspension was wrongful and should be rescinded; plaintiff argued defendant lacked clear-and-convincing proof | Defendant argued evidence (ER docs, treating clinicians) supported temporary suspension and hearing limits impaired her proof | Court correctly treated threshold under MCL 722.27a(3); court found defendant failed to prove harm by clear and convincing evidence and denial affirmed |
| Makeup parenting time (38 days) | Plaintiff argued he was wrongfully denied regular parenting time and is entitled to makeup time within statute | Defendant contended suspension was not "wrongful" because it followed proper judicial process and was supported by evidence | Award upheld: deprivation was wrongful because allegations were not proven; makeup schedule complied with statutory timing requirements |
| Child-support modification for reduced parenting time | Plaintiff opposed retroactive reduction; said no timely motion or qualifying change | Defendant argued support should be reduced for periods plaintiff had fewer overnights | Court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to timely and properly move for modification; no retroactive reduction for periods before motion was filed |
| Psychological evaluations ordered by court | Plaintiff (cross-appellant) challenged order as beyond rule without motion | Plaintiff: court lacked authority to order sua sponte without MCR 2.311 good-cause showing | Court found MCL 722.27 grants broad powers in custody disputes and good cause existed; order affirmed |
| Contempt findings (holiday return; caregiver/healthcare notice) | Plaintiff argued he had no duty to return on stated date and did not willfully violate orders | Defendant argued plaintiff disobeyed clear orders and failed to notify re caregivers/appointments | Civil contempt findings affirmed (preponderance standard); plaintiff violated holiday-return, caregiver-notice, and 24-hour healthcare notice provisions |
| Bond requirement ($1,500 per motion) and sanctions/attorney-fees requests | Plaintiff and defendant challenged bond as impeding access; plaintiff sought sanctions against defendant and vice versa | Parties argued motions were frivolous and fees warranted | Bond requirement upheld as reasonable exercise of discretion; most sanctions/fee requests denied; court did not abuse discretion on MCR 3.206(D) fee denials |
Key Cases Cited
- Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (2010) (standard of review for parenting-time orders)
- Rott v. Rott, 508 Mich. 274 (2021) (application and purpose of law-of-the-case doctrine)
- In re ASF, 311 Mich. App. 420 (2015) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Bofysil v. Bofysil, 332 Mich. App. 232 (2020) (consider child’s special needs and services when setting parenting time)
- Rittershaus v. Rittershaus, 273 Mich. App. 462 (2007) (factors in parenting-time scheduling relative to child needs)
- Diez v. Davey, 307 Mich. App. 366 (2014) (attorney-fee awards when one party cannot afford litigation and other is affluent)
- Colen v. Colen, 331 Mich. App. 295 (2020) (MCR 3.206(D) requires factual showing of inability to pay)
- In re Surety Bond for Costs, 226 Mich. App. 321 (1997) (trial court discretion to require bond for costs)
- Zapalski v. Benton, 178 Mich. App. 398 (1989) (court may impose bond sua sponte)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 313 Mich. App. 572 (2015) (merits of claim do not alone make a filing frivolous)