## Facts

- Jennifer Ireland and Steven Smith, unmarried teenagers, had a daughter, Maranda (born 1991).
- Maranda initially lived with Ireland and the maternal grandmother, who provided most day-to-day support; Smith visited and provided limited items.
- Ireland obtained an ex parte order granting her continuing custody and sought child support (January 1993).
- Ireland later attended the University of Michigan on scholarship, living with Maranda in university family housing and using a university-approved day-care center on weekdays.
- Smith lived with his parents, whose home the trial court viewed as stable and able to provide in-home care through the paternal grandmother.
- The custody trial featured sharply conflicting testimony and credibility disputes regarding each parent’s home environment and caregiving.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed clear legal error or otherwise erred in applying the statutory “best interests of the child” factors—especially the “permanence, as a family unit” factor—by finding it heavily favored the father and awarding him custody.
2. Whether factor (e) was misapplied by treating the mother’s use of licensed day care while attending school as evidence of reduced permanence or stability.
3. What limits appellate courts must observe when correcting legal error in custody cases while preserving the trial court’s fact-finding role.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court approved the appellate court’s determination that remand was required because the trial court misapplied the “permanence, as a family unit” factor.
- The Court held the trial court improperly equated the use of day care with a lack of permanence and failed to focus on the stability and continuity of the proposed family units.
- The Court declined to decide custody itself and instead directed reconsideration of custody under the correct legal framework.
- The Court modified the remand directions to emphasize proper standards and the trial court’s primary responsibility to make findings and weigh credibility.

## Legal Principles

- The “permanence, as a family unit” factor addresses the stability, durability, and continuity of the child’s family setting, not a preference for in-home care over licensed day care.
- A court commits clear legal error when it applies the wrong legal concept to a statutory best-interest factor, such as treating child-care logistics as determinative of “permanence.”
- Appellate correction is appropriate where findings are against the great weight of the evidence, the custody result reflects an abuse of discretion, or the court makes clear legal error on a major issue; however, custody fact-finding remains principally the trial court’s function on remand.
- A parent’s pursuit of education and reasonable use of approved day care may not be treated as presumptively adverse in the custody analysis absent evidence of harm or instability.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court required a remand because the trial court’s custody award rested on a legally mistaken application of the “permanence, as a family unit” factor, improperly treating the mother’s use of licensed day care while attending college as a negative; the custody determination was to be reconsidered under the correct standards with trial-court findings controlling on the facts.


Ireland v. Smith, 451 Mich. 457, 547 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. 1996)