Parenting time denial; MCL 722.27a(1) & a(3); Shade v Wright; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Barretta v Zhitkov; Procedural due process; Souden v Souden; Support agreement; Laffin v Laffin; Child Custody Act (CCA)

The court held that the trial court did not violate plaintiff’s procedural due process rights, that the parties’ 2014 agreement was not void as against public policy, and that the trial court properly denied plaintiff parenting time because the record supported the conclusion that parenting time would endanger the child’s mental or emotional health and was not in his best interests. Plaintiff, the child’s biological mother, agreed in 2014 that defendant-father would have sole legal and physical custody, that she would have no parenting time, and that defendant alone would support the child. The child thereafter lived with defendant and his wife from birth and believed the wife was his biological mother. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing after plaintiff sought parenting time in 2024 and found that the best-interest factors overwhelmingly favored defendant. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff received due process because she had notice and “an opportunity to be heard,” and the hearing “allows a party the chance to know and respond to the evidence.” The court next held that the agreement was not void on public-policy grounds because, although parties cannot bargain away a child’s support rights, “an agreement by the parties regarding support will not suspend the authority of the court to enter a support order,” and the trial court ultimately decided parenting time and custody under the CCA rather than enforcing the agreement as dispositive. The court also held that defendant had the sole ECE because the child “had only known a life and home with defendant, and did not know plaintiff as his mother.” Finally, it held that denying parenting time was proper because the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the best-interest factors favored defendant and because it would be “traumatic” for the child to learn that plaintiff was his mother, supporting the conclusion that parenting time would endanger his mental or emotional health. Affirmed.