In Woszczynz v Shouse, maternal grandparents Mr. and Mrs. Woszczynz filed a petition seeking custody of their grandson. They were limited guardians when they filed the custody petition. The Child Custody Act provides that limited guardians have no standing to bring a custody action unless the child's parents have failed to substantially comply with the guardianship placement plan. At the time the Woszczynzs filed their petition for custody, the child's mother had not complied with the guardianship placement plan and Smith had not yet established paternity. Thus, the Court of Appeals ["COA"] affirmed the trial court decision that they met the standing requirements for a limited guardianship under the statute.
The father opposed the custody petition and a trial occurred. The trial court held the grandparents to a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence and awarded custody to the father. The grandparents appealed.
The COA affirmed the trial court on the grounds that the grandparents had not met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interests of the child to award custody to them. In other words, the grandparents had failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the parental presumption. Michigan law, and the law of most states, creates a presumption of constitutional weight that it is in the best interests of a child to be in the custody of his or her biological parent as opposed to a third-party custodian.
On appeal, the Woszczynzs contended the trial court erred when it changed custody. They claimed that all of the best interest factors favored them, and also that the trial court imposed an unduly heavy burden on them to establish their entitlement to custody.
The COA disagreed. Contrary to plaintiff's claims, they could not defeat defendant's motion to change custody by simply presenting evidence as to the best interest factors that favored them.Rather, they had the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that custody with defendant was not in the child's best interests. This is the essence of the COA's ruling affirming the trial court's decision:
"Plaintiffs presented its most persuasive evidence pursuant to best interest factor (d), the length of time the child had lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining that environment, MCL 722.23(d), including the opinion of psychologist, Dr. Milton Grosenbach. However, the parental presumption, as well as the remainder of the evidence, supports the trial court’s ruling. Plaintiffs presented some evidence on some of the other best interest factors, but presented no evidence that sufficiently challenged factors (a) (defendant’s love and affection for the child), (e) (the permanence, as a family unit, of defendant’s home), (g) (defendant’s mental or physical health), (h) (the child’s home, community and school record), or (k) (domestic violence). MCL 722.23(a), (e), (g), (h), (k).
"Plaintiffs could not fulfill their burden of proof merely by demonstrating that they had greater wealth, longer home ownership, or more experience in child rearing than defendant. Again, the parental presumption required plaintiffs to demonstrate that, considering all relevant factors, defendant should not have custody of the child." [Emphasis added]
The COA cited Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247, 279-280; 771 NW2d 694 (2009). The Hunter case is the Michigan Supreme Court's most recent Decision on third-party rights to custody. It is an important case that should be carefully reviewed by any third party (non-parent) seeking custody of a child. Hunter and the applicable statute, MCL 722.25(1) provide,
“If the child custody dispute is between the parent or parents and an agency or a third person, the court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is established by clear and convincing evidence.”
This key statutory mandate protects, promotes, and reflects the important and fundamental parent-child relationship. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in the majority opinion in Troxel v Granville, a case leading to invalidation of most third-party / grandparent visitation statutes in the country:
“The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) J. O’Connor, Majority Opinion
The case, Woszczynz v Shouse, may be read here.
Hunter v Hunter, an important third-party custody case, may be read here.
Do you need help with a family law case? To find a Michigan Family Lawyer near you, click on the image below.
Comments