Stephani Lara Yachcik v. Kristopher Jon Yachcik
900 NW2d 113
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2005 with joint legal and physical custody of their son (GY); since 2012 they used an alternating-week parenting schedule.
- Plaintiff remarried and planned to relocate to Pennsylvania for employment and to consolidate households with her husband; she moved after the trial court’s order.
- In Jan 2016 plaintiff moved to change the child’s domicile to Pennsylvania and proposed that defendant receive parenting time on school breaks and most of the summer; plaintiff testified she intended to move regardless of the ruling.
- The trial court held a hearing, received testimony about finances, the proposed private school (Notre Dame), and family ties, and denied the domicile change under MCL 722.31(4), finding the move would not clearly improve the child’s quality of life.
- The court also ordered that if plaintiff moved to Pennsylvania, a parenting-time schedule substantially reducing her time (the inverse of her proposal) would apply; plaintiff moved and challenged that portion on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not addressing each MCL 722.31(4) factor explicitly | Yachcik: court must state findings on each subsection of 722.31(4) | Yachcik’s burden is to show by preponderance; court may focus on dispositive factors | Court: no clear legal error—statute requires the court to "consider" each factor but not to make explicit findings on every subsection; court properly treated 722.31(4)(a) as dispositive |
| Whether finding that the move lacked capacity to improve the child’s quality of life was against the great weight of the evidence | Yachcik: increased income and superior private school would improve GY’s life | Defendant: move severs child's extended-family ties and disrupts long-standing schooling and relationships | Court: affirmed—trial court’s conclusion that family ties, stability, and insufficient proof of school superiority did not clearly preponderate against its finding |
| Whether trial court could implement a custody/parenting-time change that alters an established custodial environment without applying MCL 722.23 best-interest factors | Yachcik: court had to assess best-interest factors before adopting a schedule that reduces her custodial role | Defendant: parties didn’t request a separate custody hearing; court’s action was procedurally acceptable | Court: vacated that portion—remanded because the change in parenting time altered an established custodial environment and the court must consider MCL 722.23 factors by clear and convincing evidence before changing custody |
| Whether remand is required for an evidentiary hearing on custody after the parenting-time change | Yachcik: trial court should hold a hearing and make statutory findings | Defendant: existing record and constraints (school schedule, geography) limit alternatives | Court: remand required—trial court must conduct proceedings on best-interest factors and make reviewable findings before maintaining the new schedule |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (framework for appellate review of custody orders and abuse of discretion standard)
- Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich App 313 (required four-step approach for domicile-change motions under MCL 722.31)
- Grew v. Knox, 265 Mich App 333 (trial court erred by altering custody without MCL 722.23 findings when move was denied but parent intended to relocate)
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich App 576 (parenting-time modification that markedly reduces time can effect change in established custodial environment)
- Rittershaus v. Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462 (increase in parental income and educational opportunities relevant to domicile-change analysis)
- Powery v. Wells, 278 Mich App 526 (trial court’s affirmative duty to apply best-interest factors despite parties’ failure to invoke them)