Court Opinion

ID: 9850412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:56:49.916928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:36.736818
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I believe the trial court erred in declining to determine whether an established custodial environment existed with the defendant. The court stated:
This is the initial divorce action and custody has been at issue precluding this Court from concluding that an established environment has been made for the children.
I find an established custodial environment in the defendant mother. She obtained temporary custody pursuant to an interim order entered February 1, 1988, and that order granted her care, custody, education and control of the children. Trial was commenced December 14, 1988, and concluded May 3, 1989. The court’s opinion granting custody to plaintiff husband is dated May 19, 1989, and the judgment effecting the change of *119custody and disposition of all matters was entered July 5, 1989. The environment may not have been ideal or exemplary, but that seems to me irrelevant if not unattainable. The fifteen or more months of temporary custody served to create a de facto established custodial environment. To the extent that Curless v Curless, 137 Mich App 673; 357 NW2d 921 (1984), injects a further requirement of stability, I think it may have been wrongly decided. Compare Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567; 309 NW2d 532 (1981); DeVries v DeVries, 163 Mich App 266; 413 NW2d 764 (1987).
On July 24, 1989, a hearing was conducted on a motion to stay proceedings brought by the defendant wife. An appeal had already been filed in the Court of Appeals and the purpose of the motion was to request a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. The defendant’s attorney argued essentially that the trial court erred in ruling that there was not a presently existing custodial environment. Counsel stated:
I would simply point out to the Court that’s totally in error, at least we believe it’s totally in error, and I make reference to the case of — MCL 722.27(l)(c) [MSA 25.312(7)(l)(c)], also Arndt v Kasem, 135 Mich App 252 [353 NW2d 497] (1984), and Blaskowski v Blaskowski, 115 Mich App 1 [320 NW2d 268] (1982). And those rules have been established in the last several years, and I will quote: "Michigan statutory and case law make it dear that the changing of an established custodial environment of a child is improper unless the Court is presented with clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.” And that’s MCL 722.27(l)(c), and also Arndt v Kasem, previously quoted.
After twenty or more pages of argument, the trial court ruled as follows:
*120The Court is going to deny the motion for stay of proceedings. I feel this was not a particularly close question with regard to the issue of custody. And the Supreme Court, through their edicts and through their court rules, have made a priority item of custody disputes and resolving them, and I think that is paramount to this case.
The court then went on to deny the defendant a stay of thirty days for counsel to request emergency relief in the Court of Appeals. Although I think it is rather clear how the trial court would rule if it were required to decide the issue in the context of a custodial environment having been established with the mother, I feel it would be inappropriate to bypass such a procedure. The circuit judge’s decision, based largely as it was on the mother’s inadequate care and attention, is undercut not only by the court’s own opinion that states that emotional ties between the competing parties favored the mother, but also by the friend of the court recommendation to grant custody to the mother for one year and then "reevaluate the situation.”
I would reverse the trial court’s holding that it was precluded from concluding that an established custodial environment existed and remand to the trial court for a custody determination based upon the existence of a custodial environment with the mother from the date of the interim order, February 1, 1988, through the date of the change of the custody order, May 23, 1989. Custody from May 23, 1989, to the date of hearing on remand is not to be considered.