Raffi Muschegian v. Kristina Maria Esparza, 353146

Background

Parties are parents of nearly three-year-old twins born July 2017; they separated after about a year and a half together.
A 14-day bench trial produced extensive testimony, surveillance by a private investigator, and conflicting portrayals of each parent’s lifestyle and parenting.
The trial court found most MCL 722.23 best-interest factors favored plaintiff, awarded plaintiff primary physical custody and sole legal custody, and limited defendant’s parenting time to alternate weekends plus two hours midweek.
The court imputed minimum-wage income to defendant for support purposes but set her child-support obligation at $0 due to plaintiff’s substantial wealth.
The court denied defendant’s request for attorney fees, finding she failed to credibly prove inability to pay.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the physical-custody and parenting-time rulings (except it found one factor error harmless), vacated the sole-legal-custody award, and remanded for reconsideration of legal custody with updated information.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff primary physical custody and limiting defendant’s parenting time	Best-interest factors (majority) favor plaintiff; he restructured life to provide care and took lead on medical/education	She was formerly the primary caregiver and had substantial equal parenting during the case; court undervalued her role	Affirmed: trial court’s findings on most MCL 722.23 factors were not against the great weight of the evidence; one factor (e) error was harmless and did not require reversal of custody or parenting-time orders
Whether sole legal custody to plaintiff was appropriate	Parties could not consistently agree on major decisions (medical helmets, hearing tests, sleeping practices) so sole legal custody was justified	Parties generally cooperated and, by trial end, could and did agree on important child-rearing decisions; past disagreements do not mandate sole legal custody	Reversed as to legal custody: abuse of discretion to award sole legal custody; court vacated that portion and remanded for reconsideration of legal custody with up-to-date information (joint legal custody must be considered)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant attorney fees	Denial proper because defendant failed to credibly prove inability to bear litigation expenses; she impeded discovery, testified inconsistently, and did not produce complete tax records	She earned little or no income; fees exceeded annual income; produced earlier tax returns at trial	Affirmed: trial court reasonably found defendant’s testimony about finances not credible and denial was within the range of principled outcomes

Key Cases Cited

Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513 (standards of review for custody orders)
Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (deference to trial court factual findings)
Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (best-interest factors and relevance of moral fitness)
Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404 (deference to credibility findings)
Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody)
Bofysil v Bofysil, 332 Mich App 232 (standards for awarding joint legal custody)
Butler v Simmons-Butler, 308 Mich App 195 (when joint legal custody is inappropriate)
Griffin v Griffin, 323 Mich App 110 (use of MCL 722.23 best-interest factors)
MacIntyre v MacIntyre (On Remand), 267 Mich App 449 (trial courts need not address every argument if record suffices)
Wiechmann v Wiechmann, 212 Mich App 436 (importance of sibling relationships in custody determinations)
Sulaica v Rometty, 308 Mich App 568 (standards for awarding attorney fees in domestic relations)
Myland v Myland, 290 Mich App 691 (discussion of ability to pay attorney fees)
Loutts v Loutts, 309 Mich App 203 (clarifying that Myland is not dispositive; ability-to-pay is fact-specific)