Court Opinion

ID: 9695059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:05:11.119275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.902545
License: Public Domain

Reilly, J.
(concurring). I believe that the eight months between October 5, 1990, and June 18, 1991, in which the daughter lived with her father pursuant to an order granting him custody, and *334during which the child looked to her father alone for "guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort” in a relatively stable, settled atmosphere was of sufficient duration to constitute an established custodial environment under § 7(1) (c) of the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.27(l)(c); MSA 25.312(7)(l)(c). Unlike the facts in Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567, 578-583; 309 NW2d 532 (1981), where the son was shifted from place to place and from parent to parent during a 5V2-month period in which the marriage relationship disintegrated, the daughter in this case spent an uninterrupted eight months with her father pursuant to court order following trial. It was not until June 18, 1991, when the Court of Appeals reversed the custody order and remanded the case for a second trial, that the permanence of this relationship was jeopardized. I agree with the trial court that there was an established custodial environment with the father during the eight-month period in which the custody order was in effect. Moreover, that custodial arrangement continued until the mother kept the child, following visitation in September 1991, a few weeks before the second trial.
However, I agree with the majority that the findings of fact are against the great weight of evidence. Although the mother is not without fault, I believe there was clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be served by granting custody of the daughter to the mother.
Accordingly, I concur in the result.