Link for Opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2188650731694083991&q=Michigan+court+cases+with+child+visitation+&hl=en&as_sdt=2,45&as_ylo=2012
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that in Peck V. Peck, Minn. Ct. App (Peck V. Peck, 2012) the circuit court was in err to change the custody of a child because a move out of state was not necessarily going to better the life of the child, but was reversed by the court of appeals stating that even a small raise and better benefits would better the livelihood of the child.
The defendant (Sarah Catherine Peck) and plaintiff (Scott Kevin Peck) shared joint legal custody of their son, with Sarah having sole physical custody and Scott receiving parenting time every other weekend. Plaintiff has consistently exercised his parenting time with his son.
In April 2011, Sarah moved the circuit court for permission to change her son's domicile from Midland, Michigan to Fayetteville, Arkansas, where she had accepted a lateral transfer with her employer. Sarah proposed a modified parenting time schedule for Scott, providing him with 7 to 12 visits per year, including all holidays and the entire summer, for a total of 95 to 98 overnights, in addition to frequent telephone and Skype contact. Although he only received 87 overnights under the schedule then in place, he believed the proposed plan would reduce his parenting time because he would be unable to participate in day-to-day events, such as doctor visits, sporting events, and school functions. Scott argued that Sarah's move constituted a change in circumstances and that it was in their son's best interests that he be given sole physical custody.
The parties appeared before a referee who denied both motions. Both parties objected and requested a de novo review by the circuit court. They stipulated that the circuit court could make its determination based on the transcripts and exhibits from the referee hearing.
The circuit court denied Sarah's motion for change of domicile. The circuit court concluded that, while the proposed move was not based on her desire to defeat Scott's parenting time, however, the move to Arkansas would not improve the child's quality of life. In support of that conclusion, the circuit court found that the move would result in a loss of access by the child to his extended family here in Michigan, and that Sarah's lateral job move, even though it involved a raise, would not provide a better quality of life for her and that any potential future job advancement was speculative. The circuit court also noted its confidence that the parties would comply with a modification of Scott's parenting time, if a change of domicile was granted, but nevertheless, held that "[n]o order of this Court as to Scott's parenting time could provide the kind of positive, intimate and regular parenting time he has enjoyed."
The circuit court determined that Sarah's move to Arkansas was a change in circumstances sufficient to revisit custody. After evaluating the statutory best interest factors, MCL 722.23, the circuit court concluded that the parties were equal on all except factor (d) (continuity), factor (j) (facilitating a relationship), and factor (l) (any other factor), for which it concluded Scott held the advantage. On the basis of these findings, the circuit court granted Scott's motion to change custody and awarded sole physical custody of the minor child to the Scott.
No comments:
Post a Comment