Shade v. Wright
291 Mich. App. 17
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Married in 1993; one child; divorce filed 2005; judgment of divorce entered 2006.
- Judgment allowed plaintiff to move with child to Ohio and provided a parenting-time schedule with plaintiff transporting for visits.
- 2010 de novo hearing followed competing petitions: plaintiff sought modification of parenting time; defendant sought sole physical custody.
- Trial court modified parenting time: extended weekend monthly, entire summer, with shared transportation responsibility; no explicit best-interests findings.
- Court acknowledged Vodvarka framework for custody but applied a broader standard for parenting time, noting normal life changes and travel implications.
- Panel affirmed the modification, holding that significant travel and the child’s high-school developments justified more flexible parenting time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case binds modification of parenting time | Shade argued law of the case prevents altering schedule. | Wright argued law of the case required keeping original terms. | Law of the case does not apply; facts differ (high school) and custody not at issue. |
| Proper cause or change of circumstances for parenting time | Shade claimed substantial change due to distance and life changes. | Wright argued no Vodvarka-like change warranted modification. | Existence of proper cause or change of circumstances acknowledged; modification allowed within non-custodial context. |
| Application of Vodvarka to parenting time (vs custody) | Vodvarka standards are too strict for parenting time. | Vodvarka should govern any change in parenting arrangements. | Vodvarka not controlling; more expansive standard applied because there is no custodial environment change. |
| Best interests analysis for modified parenting time | Best interests require accommodating teen activity and school needs. | Modification should not unduly disrupt father-child relationship. | Modification in child’s best interests; allowed activities and travel flexibility without altering custodial environment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (2003) (defines proper cause and change of circumstances; custody-focused)
- Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (1990) (sets standard for changes affecting child well-being)
- Powery v Wells, 278 Mich App 526 (2008) (modification need not alter custodial environment if not long-term)