Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingdivorcechild custody

plaintiffdefendantappealhearingtrialdivorcechild custody

Related Cases

Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871, 526 N.W.2d 889

Facts

The parties were married in 1975 and had three children. The father filed for divorce in 1990, and after hearings, a referee recommended physical custody to the mother. The Circuit Court held a de novo hearing and awarded custody to the father, finding most statutory factors neutral but favoring him on some. The mother appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the custody decision, citing errors in the Circuit Court's findings.

The parties were married in 1975 and have three children. The plaintiff filed for divorce in 1990. Following extended hearings incident to the divorce proceeding, a referee recommended that physical custody of the children be awarded to the defendant.

Issue

What are the appropriate standards of review for child custody cases, and did the Circuit Court commit legal errors in its custody determination?

We are asked to clarify the proper standard of review in child custody cases.

Rule

The standards of review in child custody cases are: (1) findings of fact are reviewed under the 'great weight of evidence' standard; (2) discretionary rulings are reviewed for 'palpable abuse of discretion'; and (3) questions of law are reviewed for 'clear legal error'.

To expedite the resolution of a child custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the Court of Appeals' findings and determined that while the Circuit Court made errors regarding certain factors, it did not err in its overall approach. The Court emphasized that the standards of review established by the Child Custody Act must be adhered to, and that the appellate court should not engage in de novo review of custody cases.

The Court held that the trial court committed clear legal error with regard to factors b, e, and f. As explained below, we agree with the Court of Appeals finding of legal error with respect to factors e and f, but we do not find error in the trial court's analysis of factor b.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the standards of review and affirmed in part while remanding the case to the Circuit Court for reevaluation of its custody award.

For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals decision that posits a standard of review different than that prescribed in § 8 of the Child Custody Act.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the father, as the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the Circuit Court's custody award in his favor.

The plaintiff appealed to this Court.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

United States v. Moyer, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2266906

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539, 55 USLW 4612

Morrell v. State, 216 P.3d 574

Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 577 F.3d 989, 92 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,644, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,314, 29 IER Cases 769, 2009 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 33,015, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,331, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,417, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,023

Shapiro v. Cantor, 123 F.3d 717, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,522