Court Opinion

ID: 9855638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:28:39.327411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:16.889127
License: Public Domain

Bashara, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. MCL 722.27(c); MSA 25.312(7)(c), quoted in segments in the majority opinion, is controlling. The full text reads as follows:
"If a child custody dispute has been submitted to a circuit court as an original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in a circuit court or another or judgment of a circuit court, for the best interests of the child the court may:
"(c) modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances until the child reaches 18 years of age. The court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort. The age of the child, the physical environment, and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be considered. ” (Emphasis added.)
The Michigan Supreme Court in Baker v Baker, 411 Mich 567; 309 NW2d 532 (1981), stated the proper point of inquiry in resolving custody modification disputes. The first question is whether an "established custodial environment” exists. If the circuit court determines that such a relationship exists, based upon the criteria stated in the statute, the court may modify the custody order only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that a change would be in the best interests of the child. See MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3). If no "established custodial environment” is found to exist, *273the motion is considered on a mere preponderance of the evidence standard. Baker, 579.
In my opinion, the trial court in the case at bar erred in assuming that since custody had been awarded to plaintiff, an "established custodial environment” must be presumed.1 There being several criteria listed in the statute, it is clear that the mere possession of custody does not raise the movant’s burden to the clear and convincing evidence standard.
Because the trial court made a clear error of law on a major issue, reversal is required. MCL 722.28; MSA 25.312(8).
Even if the trial court had correctly considered the established custodial environment question, I would hold that reversal is required. The great weight of the evidence defies a finding that an "established custodial environment” existed in the custodial parent. The trial court’s opinion repeatedly describes the custody situation as being in a constant state of "churning”. I agree with this characterization based upon the record, considered in conjunction with the factors enumerated in the statute.
Finally, given the fact that the preponderance of the evidence standard should have been used, I find that the trial court erred in holding that the best interests of the children were served by denying the modification petition. The trial court stated that if this was a matter of first impression, he *274might have awarded custody to the defendant.2 The trial court’s findings of fact are replete with references to defendant’s virtues as a parent and plaintiffs shortcomings. Yet, the court felt constrained to award custody to plaintiff, evidently due to a misconception of defendant’s burden of proof. The great weight of the evidence, examined in light of the factors enumerated in MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3), supports an order granting the motion for modification.
I would reverse and remand for entry of an order in defendant’s favor.

 The trial court stated:
"My problem is further complicated by the fact that the statute is very clear that once there has been a custodial environment established by the order of the court, I have to have clear and convincing evidence in order to change that relationship. In other words, even though I didn’t have any part of the proceeding establishing the original custodial environment, I am still bound by it; and I am not only bound by it, I am bound to find clear and convincing evidence that a change of that environment is necessary in order to make any change in it.”

 The trial court held:
"I’m not certain that if this was a matter of first impression that I would not have awarded custody of these children to David, assuming that all the circumstances had been the same as they are today at the time that the divorce was entered, if it had been my burden at that time, and if the situation with which David has now existed at the time of divorce. That is, he is remarried to a stable woman who is capable of assisting him in rearing children. Unfortunately, he was not at the time of the divorce in that situation.”