930 N.W.2d 410
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant (Regnier) and plaintiff lived together and had three children; defendant left for several months in 2010 and later returned; allegations of neglect led to CPS involvement and a dispositional plan requiring services and supervised parenting time.
- The children were returned to plaintiff and plaintiff was awarded sole legal and physical custody; defendant was limited to supervised, then suspended, visitation after DHHS and therapists reported inconsistency and that visitation aggravated the children.
- In late 2015 the children (through their GAL and counselors) strongly expressed they did not want contact with defendant; counselors and trauma assessments reported that visits increased the children’s anxiety and interfered with therapeutic progress.
- The trial court found an established custodial environment with plaintiff and, after reviewing assessments and best-interest factors, suspended defendant’s parenting time by clear and convincing evidence because contact might be harmful to the children’s mental or emotional health.
- This Court affirmed the suspension as not against the great weight of the evidence but remanded for the trial court to hold periodic review hearings to determine whether reinstating parenting time later would be in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parenting time may be suspended when it would endanger children’s mental or emotional health | Parenting time harms the children now; assessments and counselors support suspension | Suspension not supported by clear and convincing evidence; defendant’s bond and efforts favor reinstatement | Court upheld suspension: clear and convincing evidence that contact could harm children’s mental/emotional health |
| Weight of trauma assessments and counselor opinions | Assessments and counselor letters show increased anxiety and recommend suspension | Assessments do not definitively say parenting time would harm; negative attitudes may be due to limited contact or parental alienation | Court found trial court permissibly relied on assessments and counselors; findings not against great weight of evidence |
| Whether suspension effectively terminated parental rights by denying reunification therapy | Suspension appropriate without ordering reunification therapy given harm concerns | Suspension without mandated reunification therapy is de facto termination of parental rights | Court declined to require reunification therapy but remanded to require periodic review hearings to avoid indefinite exclusion |
| Standard of proof and burdens for modifying parenting time | Clear and convincing evidence required to deny parenting time on health/endangerment grounds | Defendant argued insufficient evidence under that standard | Court affirmed that clear and convincing evidence was met and applied statutory standards appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (discussing standard of review for parenting-time orders) (trial-court factual findings upheld unless against great weight of evidence or abuse of discretion)
- MacIntyre v. MacIntyre (On Remand), 267 Mich. App. 449 (trial court may weigh witness credibility in parenting-time disputes)
- Lieberman v. Orr, 319 Mich. App. 68 (parent seeking to modify parenting-time order must show proper cause or change in circumstances)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (abolition of one-parent doctrine affecting child-protective proceedings)