McIntosh v. McIntosh
768 N.W.2d 325, 282 Mich. App. 471 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court in a child custody dispute is not bound by a psychological evaluation or a Friend of the Court (FOC) recommendation; the court must independently determine the child's best interests by weighing all competent evidence presented at trial.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendant met in the early 1990s and married on October 2, 2004.
- The defendant had a son, Keegan, from a previous relationship.
- The parties' son, Jordan, was born on May 5, 2006.
- The plaintiff had a history of alcohol abuse, which he admitted was a problem, and he attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
- The defendant testified that the plaintiff became violent and angry when he drank, hid liquor in the marital residence, and was found passed out with a bottle of vodka.
- The defendant testified that the plaintiff physically assaulted her during the marriage, and the plaintiff admitted he was 'probably' physically assaultive on two occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (father) filed a complaint for divorce in the trial court on July 5, 2007.
- The trial court entered an ex parte order for joint custody, with the child residing with the plaintiff.
- The ex parte order was later modified by a consent order providing for an equal division of physical custody.
- The trial court referred the case to the Kalamazoo County Friend of the Court (FOC) for a custody and parenting time evaluation.
- A limited license psychologist, Laura Kracker, conducted the evaluation and recommended that the parties share joint legal and physical custody.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court issued a written opinion on April 8, 2008, awarding defendant (mother) sole legal and physical custody.
- A final judgment of divorce incorporating the custody determination was entered on April 28, 2008.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's custody determination to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 adopt a psychological evaluation's recommendation for joint custody when other evidence presented at trial, including witness testimony, supports a different outcome?
Opinions:
Majority - K. F. Kelly, J.
No. A trial court does not err by refusing to implement a psychological evaluation's recommendation because such evaluations are not conclusive and are only one piece of evidence for the court to consider. The trial court has a duty to independently determine the child's best interests based on all competent evidence, including live testimony, which it is in the best position to assess for credibility. In this case, the trial court was 'greatly impacted' by the trial testimony regarding the plaintiff's controlling behavior, alcoholism, and actions designed to interfere with the mother-child relationship. The court properly weighed this evidence more heavily than the psychological report and did not abuse its discretion in awarding sole custody to the defendant based on its analysis of the statutory best interest factors.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad discretion of trial courts in making child custody determinations and clarifies the role of expert recommendations. It establishes that psychological evaluations are advisory, not dispositive, and cannot replace the court's independent judgment. The precedent reinforces that a trial judge's firsthand assessment of witness credibility and testimony can outweigh an expert's written report, particularly when trial evidence reveals facts not fully captured in the evaluation. This holding ensures that the ultimate custody decision remains with the court, which must consider the totality of circumstances in determining the child's best interests.
