As part of her hearsay claim, plaintiff also raises the argument that Verschaeve's psychological assessment was based on methodology not recognized by the scientific community, rendering his expert testimony inadmissible. Plaintiff did not raise this issue in her statement of questions presented, making review inappropriate. In any event, the proper inquiry is whether the testimony was admissible under MRE 702. Because the opinion testimony was not purely speculative, the trial court properly allowed it under MRE 702, and its weight was for the court as trier of fact to decide. Plaintiff also contends that the trial court's in camera interview of Carl, Jr., whose custody was not in dispute, was fundamentally unfair.
Due process requires fundamental fairness and applies to any adjudication of important rights.
While a parent's interest in the care and custody of a minor child is an important interest that warrants due process protection, because a custody decree does not sever the parental bond and is subject to modification, due process rights in a custody case are not implicated to the degree present in termination of parental rights cases. As such, it was the responsibility of the trial judge to assess the boys' relationship and their need or desire to be together. Interviewing both boys was the logical way to conduct that assessment. To determine what is best for the child in divorce and custody cases, it is critical that trial judges have considerable latitude in gathering information about the family situation. The reality is that often the only way to obtain candid information is to speak with family members in private, where the atmosphere is less coercive and feelings can be spared.