Maier v. Maier

Michigan Court of Appeals
311 Mich. App. 218 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A trial court is not required to conduct an in-person interview with a child to determine their custodial preference if the court finds, based on other evidence in the record, that the child is incapable of forming or expressing a 'reasonable' preference due to factors such as emotional distress or parental coaching.

Facts:

Plaintiff and defendant married in 2002, had a son, JM, in 2005, and separated about a year later.
During prolonged divorce and custody proceedings, plaintiff instigated several Children's Protective Services (CPS) investigations against defendant, all of which were found to be unsubstantiated.
JM, who was nine years old during the proceedings, was diagnosed with depressive disorder and ADHD.
Therapists provided testimony opining that JM was being coached by plaintiff.
Multiple witnesses testified that plaintiff voiced criticisms of defendant in JM's presence.
Following an initial court order, an acrimonious visitation between plaintiff and JM occurred, which JM perceived as a kidnapping.
After the custody change, plaintiff sent text messages to defendant threatening to terminate JM's insurance and sent JM a letter stating defendant's home was only temporary.

Procedural Posture:

Following a divorce, a petition to change custody was filed in the trial court.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing that spanned four months and included seven days of testimony.
The trial court entered an order granting defendant sole legal and physical custody of JM and granting plaintiff unsupervised visitation.
After an emergency hearing concerning an acrimonious visitation, the court modified its order to require that plaintiff's visitation be supervised.
Plaintiff (appellant) appeals the trial court's modified custody and parenting time order to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and defendant is the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court err in a child custody determination by declining to interview a child to ascertain their preference when the court finds, based on other evidence, that the child is incapable of forming a reasonable preference?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A trial court does not err by declining to interview a child when the record supports a finding that the child cannot form a reasonable preference. The Child Custody Act requires a court to consider the 'reasonable preference of the child,' but a preliminary question is always whether the child has the capacity to form such a preference. While a child over six is presumed capable, that presumption can be rebutted. An interview is merely one avenue to determine preference and is not mandatory. The court may rely on other evidence, such as testimony from mental health professionals and evidence of parental coaching or the child's emotional fragility, to determine that a child cannot express a reasonable preference. In this case, the record contained ample evidence of JM's fragile emotional state, his diagnoses, and significant efforts by the plaintiff to influence him, which supported the trial court's finding that he was unable to form a reasonable preference at the time. Therefore, the court fulfilled its statutory duty without conducting a direct interview.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that a trial court's statutory duty to consider a child's 'reasonable preference' is not a mandate to conduct a direct interview in every case. It reinforces the trial court's discretion to determine both if a child is capable of forming a reasonable preference and the appropriate method for ascertaining it. By emphasizing that an interview is just one tool among many, the court prioritizes protecting a child's best interests over a procedural formality, especially when evidence suggests the child is being unduly influenced or is too emotionally vulnerable. This precedent gives lower courts significant leeway to shield children from the pressures of litigation when an interview would be more harmful than helpful.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Maier v. Maier (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"