Rains v. Rains
301 Mich. App. 313
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- 11-year-old child; divorce 5/12/2010 awarded joint legal/physical custody and set a detailed parenting-time schedule.
- 4/25/2012 plaintiff sought change of domicile to Traverse City and proposed altered parenting time; defendant moved for change of custody.
- FOC recommended denying domicile change, citing four MCL 722.31(4) factors and lack of compelling justification; noted potential disruption to parenting-time pattern.
- 5-day hearing included testimony from plaintiff's fiancé Pronger, Ross (parenting-time coordinator), psychologist Dr. Flack, and the parties themselves; concerns about conflict and impact on child.
- 8/21/2012 trial court denied domicile change and modified parenting time to an alternating-week schedule; plaintiff appealed; court addressed jurisdiction and framework for change of domicile and custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the domicile change proper under MCL 722.31(4)? | Rains argues D’Onofrio factors support move. | Rains contends factors do not justify domicile change. | Yes; domicile change framing affirmed under correct framework (preponderance of factors shown) and not reversed. |
| Did an established custodial environment exist? | Rains alleges no long-standing joint environment. | Court credited ongoing joint custodial environment. | Yes, established custodial environment existed with both parents. |
| Would domicile change alter the established custodial environment? | Move would disrupt existing custody. | Any alteration would depend on the framework; court found potential modification. | Change in domicile would modify the environment; court proceeded to best-interests step if required. |
| Was the change in domicile and best interests shown by clear and convincing evidence? | Move not in child’s best interests; no clear and convincing showing. | Best interests supported by child’s stability and parental involvement. | Court concluded, under proper framework, best interests not proven by clear and convincing evidence when changing domicile would affect custody. |
| Was the parenting-time modification proper given the domicile dispute? | Modification not warranted without proper cause; no change in custody. | Modification justified by travel burden and reduced transfers, not changing custody. | Yes; modification to alternating weeks was proper due to change in circumstances and to reduce transfers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wardell v Hincha, 297 Mich App 127 (2012) (jurisdictional review of appeal in custody matters; appeal as of right nuo)
- Gagnon v Glowacki, 295 Mich App 557 (2012) (framework for change of domicile and custody; four-step analysis)
- Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462 (2007) (established custodial environment; framework for modifications)
- Brown v Loveman, 260 Mich App 576 (2004) (abuse of discretion standard; weight of evidence)
- Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008) (credibility and weighing of best-interest factors)
- Pierron v Pierron (Pierron II), 486 Mich 81 (2010) (change in parenting time when no change in custody; best-interests standard)
- Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (2010) (treatment of proper cause/change in circumstances for parenting-time modifications)
- Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (1994) (remand for proper framework when misapplied law)