Court Opinion

ID: 9715479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:06:41.37365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.164998
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
The trial court relied upon an incorrect standard of proof in awarding plaintiff-appellee custody of the two minor children, Angie and Daniel. *195There is no dispute but that an established custodial environment did not exist for either child. Thus, and as recognized by the majority, the trial court’s custody decision was to be based upon the best interests of the two children as determined by the preponderance of the evidence. Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567, 582; 309 NW2d 532 (1981). The court, however, erroneously held defendant to the more burdensome clear and convincing standard of proof appropriately applicable on requests to change an established custodial environment.
While I would find that the court erred as a matter of law in awarding custody of Angie and Daniel to the plaintiff, I would not reverse the custody award as requested by defendant in her brief on appeal. I would instead remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the facts as established at the June 24, 1983, custody hearing in light of the appropriate standard of proof.