Child custody; Motion to modify custody & parenting time; Due process; Proper cause or change in circumstances; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Determining whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary; MCR 3.210(C)(8); Motion for reconsideration; Motion to suppress & strike a social worker’s statements from the record; Social worker-client privilege; MCL 333.18513(2); Applicability of MCL 600.2157a; MCL 330.1750

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit clear legal error in granting plaintiff-mother’s motion to suppress a social worker’s testimony and strike the pleadings referencing her anticipated testimony. It also did not err or abuse its discretion in denying defendant-father’s motion to modify custody and parenting time without an evidentiary hearing because he did not meet the threshold requirement under Vodvarka. There was no due process violation. The social worker (S) was assigned by the trial court to provide family counseling as part of an agreement to resolve the parties’ dispute out of court. While the communications with S were protected by MCL 333.18513(2), defendant argued “the trial court was authorized to pierce the privilege under MCL 600.2157a or MCL 330.1750(3), or both[.]” The court concluded MCL 600.2157a(1)(a) did not apply “because the communications at issue were not made under” the circumstances set forth in the statute. As to MCL 330.1750, none of the exceptions in MCL 330.1750(2)(a) to (f) were implicated, and “the mere fact that the trial court directed the parties to attend counseling does not constitute a waiver of the presumptive social worker-client privilege.” For the trial court to be able to consider S’s “statements, records, and testimony, there must be some statute or caselaw authorizing [it] to do so notwithstanding the privilege. Defendant” did not cite such authorization, and the court was unaware of any that would apply here. And without S’s “statements and testimony, defendant’s motion created no contested factual issue to justify holding an evidentiary hearing. Due process did not require an evidentiary hearing on” his motion under the circumstances. The court noted that he may in future file another motion and “may then receive an evidentiary hearing in the event that his motion is sufficient to require one.” Affirmed.