Court Opinion

ID: 9655018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:58:00.333447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.567397
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent.
Amanda Kelley Upell was born out of wedlock on December 29, 1977. At the time Amanda was born, her parents (plaintiff and defendant) had already determined that any attempt at marriage would be unsuccessful. Amanda grew up from her birth living with plaintiff. At the time of the custody trial below, Amanda had lived with her mother for three and one-half years and had been raised as a happy, healthy, and well-adjusted child.
The trial court determined that an established custodial environment existed but concluded, under MCL 722.27; MSA 25.312(7), that there was clear and convincing evidence that Amanda’s best interests would be served by changing her custody *23from plaintiff to defendant. The trial judge was concerned because plaintiff and Amanda had moved four times in three and one-half years, plaintiff was physically and emotionally weaker than defendant, and plaintiff and Amanda were living with plaintiff’s fiancé outside of a marriage relationship. Defendant was concerned about Amanda’s moral upbringing because plaintiff was living out of wedlock with her fiancé. Defendant had lived out of wedlock with the plaintiff as well as his present wife. It is noted plaintiff married her fiancé in January, 1982. The trial court also noted that, in defendant’s household, Amanda would be cared for during the day by defendant’s new wife, while plaintiff took Amanda to plaintiff’s sister during the working day.
The trial court sought to establish Amanda in the home where she would find the more stability and the more moral atmosphere. The court recognized that Amanda’s ties to her mother were stronger but reasoned that the increase in stability (from a home situation where plaintiff and Amanda had moved several times to a house where defendant had lived for four years) and in morality compensated Amanda for the upset in leaving her mother.
If this were an original divorce action and Amanda had previously been raised by both parents, I might agree. In such a situation, the trial court should balance the assets each parent could bring to the child’s upbringing and determine the best interests of the child from this balance sheet. Amanda, however, has lived her entire life with her mother and has formed a deep and lasting bond with her. She has prospered in her mother’s care and has grown to be a happy and well-cared-for child.
*24It is noted that this is not a case where the custodial parent placed her own pleasure before her child’s best interest. Plaintiff repeatedly testified that she would alter her living arrangement with her fiancé by either marrying him earlier than planned or breaking off her relationship with him rather than give up Amanda. Plaintiff resolved her infrequent health problems in ways which reflected her concern for her daughter and cared well for Amanda even in times of great stress in plaintiff’s life. As the trial court stated: "Plaintiff has actually raised the child through thick and thin and has provided for her.” Amanda’s best interests would be served by a return to her mother’s home. I would reverse for the reasons stated herein.