e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 76763
Opinion Date : 12/28/2021
e-Journal Date : 01/20/2022
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Massey v. Verazain
Practice Area(s) : Family Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Stephens, Borrello, and O'Brien
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Divorce; Legal custody; Consideration of the statutory best-interest factors; MCL 722.26a(1)(a); Established custodial environment; Parenting-time; Proper cause or change of circumstances; Child support; Imputing income; Carlson v Carlson; 2017 MCSF 2.01(G)(1) & (2); Assignment of student loan debts

Summary

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of divorce granting sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children to plaintiff-mother, its child support determination and its assignment to her of the student loan debts she accrued during the marriage, and the denial of defendant-father's motion to increase parenting time. He argued that it was inappropriate for the trial court to consider the best-interest factors when deciding the issue of legal custody. This contention lacked merit. “The Legislature explicitly provided that the trial court should consider the best-interest factors when deciding whether joint legal custody is in a child’s best interests.” Thus, the court held that "the trial court did not err by including these factors in its analysis." Defendant further argued that “for a majority of the best interests factors, the trial court erred by discounting his parental role on the basis that he worked outside the home, and improperly assumed an established custodial environment with plaintiff on this basis.” The court concluded otherwise, determining that "the trial court did not discount the parental role of defendant because he was a working parent; rather, its decision was based on defendant’s actual role and presence in the children’s physical and psychological environments.” The trial court found that, since at least 5/16, “plaintiff had provided for the children’s emotional, religious, education, and medical needs, as well as love and guidance. It found that plaintiff had been a stay-at-home parent and home-schooled the children, while defendant’s relationship with the children had been ‘one of distance with visitation since 2016.’ The evidence did not clearly preponderate against the trial court’s findings.”

Full PDF Opinion