Sulaica v. Rometty
308 Mich. App. 568
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parties never married; 2003 consent judgment awarded defendant sole legal custody and joint physical custody; defendant’s residence designated primary for school; order prohibited permanent out-of-state moves without consent or court approval.
- Defendant moved to change the child’s domicile to Florida in Feb 2014, citing better employment and that she was sole legal custodian; plaintiff opposed, asserting an established custodial environment with both parents and seeking joint legal custody and extended parenting time.
- Trial court delayed ruling pending a CPS investigation (which found allegations unsubstantiated), then held brief evidentiary inquiry, granted defendant’s motion to relocate based on her sole legal custody, denied plaintiff’s motions, referred parenting-time details to the Friend of the Court (FOC), and awarded defendant $1,000 in attorney fees as sanctions against plaintiff.
- FOC recommended a specific out-of-state parenting-time schedule; trial court adopted a modified version without a hearing and denied plaintiff’s request for fees under MCR 3.206(C).
- Plaintiff appealed multiple orders: change of domicile, the attorney-fee sanction for filing motions, the parenting-time order, and denial of attorney fees for responding to the FOC recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have applied MCL 722.27 clear-and-convincing "established custodial environment" analysis before permitting out-of-state move | Sulaica argued there was an established custodial environment with both parents; thus defendant needed to show proper cause/change of circumstances and prove best interests by clear and convincing evidence | Rometty argued sole legal custody meant MCL 722.31(2) allowed relocation without the MCL 722.31(4) factors, so trial court could permit the move without the MCL 722.27 analysis | Reversed in part and remanded: trial court erred by failing to determine whether an established custodial environment existed and, if so, whether the move would change it; if it would, defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the move is in the child’s best interests (follow Rains four-step framework) |
| Whether trial court properly awarded $1,000 in attorney fees to defendant as sanction for plaintiff’s motions | Plaintiff contended his motions were not frivolous; they raised legitimate custody issues tied to the relocation question | Defendant argued plaintiff’s motions were frivolous/dilatory and sought fees | Fee award reversed: fee sanction rested on trial court’s erroneous legal analysis of the domicile/custodial-environment issue, so award abused discretion |
| Whether parenting-time order (adopting FOC recommendation with modifications) should stand | Plaintiff argued the parenting-time award depended on the relocation ruling and proper custodial-environment findings; trial court denied him full relief without factual development | Defendant argued the FOC schedule was reasonable given move to Florida and trial court properly entered order without hearing | Reversed: parenting-time order vacated and remanded because proper parenting-time determination depends on outcome of remanded custodial-environment and best-interests analysis |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying plaintiff’s request for attorney fees under MCR 3.206(C) for responding to FOC objections | Plaintiff argued he could not afford counsel and sought fees to respond to defendant’s FOC objections | Defendant opposed fees | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to present sufficient factual proof of inability to pay or that fees were reasonable; denial was within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich App 576 (discusses need to apply MCL 722.27 best-interests analysis when change of domicile effectively alters an established custodial environment)
- Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich App 313 (four-step framework for domicile changes and review standard)
- Brecht v. Hendry, 297 Mich App 732 (treats relocation analysis where moving parent has sole legal and physical custody)
- Brausch v. Brausch, 283 Mich App 339 (custodial-environment findings are factual; discusses relocation standards)
- Spires v. Bergman, 276 Mich App 432 (relocation where mover had sole legal and physical custody)
- Wardell v. Hincka, 297 Mich App 127 (broad definition of postjudgment child-custody orders as final and appealable)
- Gagnon v. Glowacki, 295 Mich App 557 (after permitting relocation, court must determine effect on established custodial environment and, if changed, require clear-and-convincing best-interests showing)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (standard for review: legal error and abuse of discretion in custody contexts)