Susan Reanel Ludwig v. Craig Cooper Ludwig, 322 Mich. App. 266

Background

Plaintiff and defendant divorced in 2009; plaintiff was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the two minor children and defendant was limited to supervised or suspended parenting time after protective orders and other incidents.
Multiple psychological evaluations occurred: an initial negative evaluation, a contested Turner evaluation, and a Bow evaluation diagnosing defendant with persecutory delusional disorder and recommending therapy.
Trial court ordered defendant to undergo treatment with Cotter (treating psychologist); Cotter treated defendant and ultimately recommended beginning a reunification process.
Plaintiff opposed reunification without a full evidentiary hearing and argued the court lacked authority to order therapy-based contact by video conference as it effectively modified parenting time.
The trial court ordered a structured, therapist-controlled reunification process (children to have therapy in California, then a reunification video conference with Cotter), explicitly stating the order did not modify existing parenting time and that any change would require Friend of the Court review and a future evidentiary hearing.
Plaintiff appealed, claiming clear legal error for ordering family therapy/video contact without an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering therapist-led video conferences between defendant and children modified parenting time	Ludwig: the order effectively changed parenting time and therefore required a full evidentiary hearing under the Child Custody Act	Trial court: the order was therapeutic contact, not parenting time, and was within the court’s broad custody powers	The court held the order did not modify parenting time and no evidentiary hearing was required
Whether the trial court abused discretion or violated due process by limiting plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions	Ludwig: being prevented from presenting her evidence denied meaningful opportunity to be heard	Trial court: plaintiff received notice, a multi-day hearing occurred, and she cross-examined Cotter; court considered prior evaluations	The court held due process requirements were satisfied and no abuse of discretion occurred
Whether the Child Custody Act’s procedural protections apply to the order	Ludwig: statutory protections for modifying parenting time should apply if the order changes parenting time	Trial court: because the order did not change parenting time, those procedural protections do not apply	The court held the procedural protections were inapplicable because the order was not a parenting-time modification
Whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in ordering family therapy/reunification	Ludwig: court lacked authority to impose this therapy/contact regime without a hearing	Trial court: MCL 722.27(1)(e) grants broad powers to take necessary actions in custody disputes	The court held the trial court acted within its broad custody powers in ordering therapy and reunification steps

Key Cases Cited

Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (discussing standards of review in custody cases)
Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 291 Mich. App. 660 (standard for reviewing factual findings and custody rulings)
Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (defining "clear legal error" and standards of review)
Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (procedural hearing requirement when modifying parenting time)
Lieberman v. Orr, 319 Mich. App. 68 (definition of parenting time)
Blaskowski v. Blaskowski, 115 Mich. App. 1 (trial court’s broad powers in custody disputes)
Maier v. Maier, 311 Mich. App. 218 (abuse of discretion standard in custody cases)
Al-Maliki v. LaGrant, 286 Mich. App. 483 (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Spranger v. City of Warren, 308 Mich. App. 477 (due process minimums of notice and opportunity to be heard)