*1 v SCHLENDER SCHLENDER January 5, 1999, Rapids. Grand Decided at No. 208285. Submitted Docket April 9, 9:40 A.M. judgment a the Kent Circuit Court obtained from Shawn E. Schlender E. that awarded the from Thomas Schlender of divorce primary physi- custody awarded the of their child and subsequently custody moved for a cal of the child. The by and, as an administrative Court, an that identified Circuit submitted offer the Kent present expected in what evidence Sullivan, court, J., Paul reviewed the defendant’s motion. and, allowed the administrative submission concluding the defendant’s denied proof. The defendant evidence could not sustain his burden appealed. Appeals The Court of held: promulgating is a at issue an The administrative rule be local rule. A local court must Supreme A local Court if it to be enforced. with or matters invalid the extent it conflicts Michigan Rules. In this the administra- covered Court and conflicts was tive requires 3.210(C), a be conducted which MCR when is contested. child Reversed and remanded. majority, P.J., concurring in the result reached evidentiary light an order
stated that express testimony intent of a child wel- respect concerning specialist fare the child’s best interests with custody. Hearings. Changes — — — Custody Evidentiary Custody Divorce Child parent seeking postdivorce change in child entitled concerning under a Court Rule to may best interests in terms of child’s hearing (MCR 3.210[C]; deprived by local court rule of such 25.312[3]). V SCHLENDER SCHLENDER Vamum, Riddering, Howlett, Schmidt LLP (by N. Stevenson Jennette, III), plaintiff. for the Riley,
Robert J. for the defendant. *2 Before: Kelly, P.J., and and JJ. Gribbs appeals Defendant the trial court order Gribbs, denying defendant’s post-divorce-judgment motion for change parties’ of of the child. minor At issue the whether circuit court the authority has to limit availability the of hearings child cus- tody cases. We reverse and remand. were divorced August 23, on 1996. The
judgment of provided divorce legal for custody, having primary physical custody. On October 1997, defendant filed a motion for change custody, proof an offer including required by the circuit court’s Administrative 1996-16: identify- shall contain ... an offer [The motion] expects what evidence the movant to request. . . . response ... judge is not filed unless directs If, reviewing submitted,
otherwise. judge what anticipated that might concludes the movant’s evidence sus- proof, judge tain his or her burden of shall take what steps appropriate are deemed If .... concludes the movant’s evidence cannot make request showing, change shall be . . . denied. In accordance with the local administrative submitted a lengthy” “rather motion and offer of proof including exhibits and a witness list. At hearing regarding motion, the court indicated that it had read defendant’s motion and did require argument further from defendant. Plaintiff App 230 permitted
presented and defendant argument denied defendant’s The trial court respond. for no reason” custody, finding “good for change. that the administrative argues
Defendant to an invalid, that was entitled motion, is no for a his and that there basis regarding policy eliminating that entitle- circuit court agree. ment. We questions of law are reviewed custody cases,
In Wiechmann, error. Wiechmann legal clear reviews This Court Fire Ins error de novo. Westchester claim NW2d Co Ins 663, 667; Safeco 212 (1994). we find policy,” coined an “administrative
Although
is,
fact,
issue
*3
appear
rule. It does not
promulgating a local court
order.” Administrative orders
be an “administrative
only
permitted
purpose
gov-
limited
are
Employees
erning
management.
internal
court
Dist Court v Hillsdale
Judge
Second Judicial
The
705;
(1985).
423 Mich
Circuit courts
must be
rules, but
the rules
they
Supreme Court
are to
The
at issue here
8.112(A)(2).
enforced. MCR
Court.
was never
Moreover,
the extent that
local court
matters covered
conflict or
People
James,
Rules,
is invalid.
SCHLENDER V SCHLENDER
App 457, 469;
We find that the in a matter can- deprived not be local court rule of an evidentiary hearing. This Court has held that it is improper for a trial to decide the issue of custody on the pleadings report and the of the Mend of the court Stringer when no held. Vincent, The trial court must determine the best inter-
ests of the child as defined in
25.312(3),
must make findings on each factor. A
before
can be changed on
basis. Mann v Mann,
temporary
even a
526, 529-530;
seeking to have an evidentiary Because hearing. postjudgment motions in domestic relations actions are governed rule, see MCR 3.213, a local court rule regarding domestic relations actions is invalid.
We recognize and commend the authentic concern behind the circuit court’s efforts to control its docket and to eliminate frivolous actions. However, it is evi- dent from the body of law surrounding custody deci- sions that both the Legislature judiciary and the rec- ognize proceed cautiously need to in this sensitive and critical Accordingly, area. we find the circuit court’s Administrative 1996-16 invalid and *4 reverse and remand for further proceedings. Our rul- ing prevent intended to the trial court from experimenting options, with other sanctions, such as by Kelly, P.J. Concurrence submitting its docket, or from control its approval. Court for rule to the
a local court retain and remanded. We do Reversed jurisdiction. J., concurred. (concurring). in the result I concur P.J. separately majority opinion. write I
reached parameters hear for such an note that the addressed. In the have not been parties nothing record, had further to add to agree with the trial court’s I be inclined to then would appears that defendant intended However, actions. specialist, welfare witness, call at least one a child relationship testify regarding strength of the reason, this I defendant and his son. For between prop order to believe erly of this child how the best interests determine would be served.