Court Opinion

ID: 9523626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:44:50.976067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:56.943214
License: Public Domain

*98Doctoroff, J.
(concurring). I write separately because I am troubled by the unfairness to the defendant of her possibly having to meet a more difficult burden on remand than she would have had the matter been properly handled below.
Although the trial court initially determined that no established custodial environment had been created in the plaintiffs home, it is possible that a determination will be made on remand that an established custodial environment has been created there during the pendency of this appeal. Carson v Carson, 156 Mich App 291, 302; 401 NW2d 632 (1986). If such is the case, the burden of proof will shift to the defendant, under MCL 722.27(1)(c); MSA 25.312(7)(1)(c), to prove by clear and convincing evidence that removal would be in the best interest of the children. Schwiesow v Schwiesow, 159 Mich App 548, 544; 406 NW2d 878 (1987).
This potential placement of the burden of proof on the defendant is patently unfair. Nonetheless, because the statements of policy in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq., are considered to be "superior to the symmetry of common law appellate remedies and even to the rights of the plaintiff who has prevailed on appeal,” Carson supra, I must, with great reluctance, concur.