Court Opinion

ID: 9658414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:58:58.086769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:54.854980
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring). As the dissenter re-, specting custody in this case,1 I am at a loss as to my role in the light of the Supreme Court’s brief order vacating the majority’s decision and remanding for "reconsideration” in view of the joint cus*496tody amendment to the statute. I am assuming that the Supreme Court intended to affirm, except with respect to custody.
Public Act No. 434 of 1980, referred to by the Supreme Court, amends § 3 of and adds a new § 6a to the Child Custody Act of 19702 and was approved January 14, 1981, with immediate effect.
Section 33 was amended to make eagerness for joint custody a plus factor in disputed custody matters. Section 6a spells out a kind of legislative preference for joint custody. Whether joint custody should be imposed in the face of violent custody disputes must await judicial review on a case-by-case basis.
1 do not believe 1980 PA 434 was intended to be applied retroactively.4 However, it was in effect after January 14, 1981. Therefore, I join the majority in remanding this case to the trial court for appropriate further action._

 Wilcox v Wilcox, 100 Mich App 75; 298 NW2d 667 (1980).

 MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq.

 MCL 722.23Q); MSA 25.312(3)0).

 People v Rice, 101 Mich App 1; 300 NW2d 428 (1980).