Action for grandparent time; MCL 722.27b; Whether an order for grandparenting time affects custody within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) (“final judgment” in a domestic relations action) making it appealable as of right under MCR 7.203(A); Thurston v. Escamilla; “Affect”; Wardell v. Hincka; Rains v. Rains; “Legal custody”; Grange Ins. Co. of MI v. Lawrence; A parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, & control of his or her child; Troxel v. Granville; In re Sanders; In re JK; Whether the grandparenting time statute is unconstitutional; Presumption of constitutionality; Mayor of Cadillac v. Blackburn; Burden of proof; In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71; Due process; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Facial constitutional challenges; Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v. Michigan; Cruzan v. Director, MO Dep’t of Health; Santosky v. Kramer; Deference to a fit parent’s decision; Hunter v. Hunter; DeRose v. DeRose; Subject matter jurisdiction; Joy v. Two-Bit Corp.; Bowie v. Arder; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Edry v. Adelman; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.; “Hearsay” & exceptions; MRE 801 & 802; Waiver; MacInnes v. MacInnes; People v. Carter

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the defendant-father’s appeal from the trial court’s order granting the intervenors’ (grandparents) request for grandparent visitation with their grandchild (A). It then held that the grandparent visitation statute is not unconstitutional, and that the grandparents were entitled to visitation. The plaintiff, A’s mother, who died in 2007, initiated a child custody dispute in 2003. A consent order was issued in 2004. In 2013, the grandparents filed a motion seeking grandparenting time. The trial court found that entry of a grandparenting time order was in A’s best interests, and entered an order to that effect in 2014. The court previously dismissed the father’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court remanded, directing it to address the issue of “whether an order regarding grandparenting time may affect custody within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), or otherwise be appealable by right under MCR 7.203(A).” On remand, the court first found that it had jurisdiction. It found that the 2014 order was “not a ‘final judgment’ or ‘final order’ under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i).” However, as to MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), because a grandparenting time order “overrides a parent’s legal decision to deny grandparenting time,” it “interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child. Thus, where a parent has legal custody of the child, an order regarding grandparenting time is a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor.” As to the merits of the case, the court rejected the father’s argument that the grandparenting time statute is unconstitutional, holding that “because due process concerns are not at their highest in cases involving requests for grandparenting time . . . the requirement that grandparents, in order to rebut the presumption given to a fit parent’s decision, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of harm to the child is sufficient to protect the fundamental rights of parents.” It also found that the grandparents “could seek an order of grandparenting time irrespective of whether father had completely denied them all grandparenting time with A.” The father “withdrew his hearsay objection to A’s statements, thereby allowing facts and data on which” the psychologist “based her opinion to be admitted into evidence,” and he could not now claim that the trial court erred when it considered them. Finally, the court rejected his claim that the trial court’s finding that the grandparents proved that a denial of grandparenting time would create a substantial risk of harm was against the great weight of the evidence. Affirmed.