## Facts

- Former spouses Cindy Kay Maier (mother) and Daniel Clayton Maier (father) disputed custody and parenting time for their son, J.M., who was nine years old at the time of the post-divorce proceedings.
- The parties separated shortly after J.M.’s birth and later divorced in 2012, but custody litigation resumed within months of the divorce judgment.
- The record included repeated motions for show-cause relief and multiple Children’s Protective Services investigations initiated by the mother; CPS found each report unsubstantiated.
- J.M. had significant mental-health diagnoses, including depressive disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and he was receiving therapy.
- During a custody-change proceeding in 2013, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing spanning four months and seven days of testimony.
- Multiple witnesses, including J.M.’s therapists, testified that the mother openly criticized the father in J.M.’s presence and attempted to influence J.M.’s stated custody preference by coaching him on what to say to the judge.
- Based on the evidence of coaching and J.M.’s mental-health concerns, the trial judge concluded that interviewing J.M. would not likely produce an independent, reasonable preference regarding custody and declined to conduct an in camera interview.
- The trial court granted the father sole legal and physical custody and initially ordered the mother to have unsupervised parenting time under a standard schedule.
- After an acrimonious initial visitation period following the custody order, the trial court modified parenting time to require supervision unless a psychological evaluation recommended otherwise.
- The mother appealed as of right from the order awarding the father sole custody and requiring supervised parenting time.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by declining to interview J.M. to assess his custodial preference under MCL 722.23(i).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion (or made findings against the great weight of the evidence) by awarding the father sole legal and physical custody and ordering supervised parenting time for the mother unless a psychological evaluation recommended otherwise.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order.
- The court held that the trial court did not err in declining to interview J.M. because the record supported the finding that J.M. was unlikely to be able to express an independent, reasonable preference due to the mother’s coaching and his mental-health issues.
- The court held that the custody award to the father was not an abuse of discretion and was supported by the trial court’s best-interests findings.
- The court held that requiring supervised parenting time for the mother, conditioned on the outcome of a psychological evaluation, was within the trial court’s discretion given the circumstances surrounding visitation and concerns about J.M.’s well-being.
- The court declined to replace the child-custody abuse-of-discretion formulation stated in Shulick v. Richards with the “principled outcomes” phrasing used in other civil contexts.

## Legal Principles

- In Michigan child-custody appeals, a trial court’s factual findings are reviewed under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard, while custody and parenting-time rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
- In the custody context, an abuse of discretion is shown when the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it reflects passion or bias rather than judgment (as articulated in Shulick v. Richards and related cases).
- Under MCL 722.23(i), the court must consider the child’s “reasonable preference” only if the court determines the child is of sufficient age and able to express a reasonable preference; the trial court has discretion in making that threshold determination.
- An in camera interview is a recognized method for learning a child’s preference, but the statute does not require an interview when the trial court reasonably finds the child’s expressed preference would not be reliable or independent due to undue influence or similar concerns.
- Under MCL 722.27a, a trial court has broad authority to structure parenting time, including ordering supervision, when the limitation is supported by the record and directed to the child’s best interests.

## Conclusion

Maier v. Maier affirmed a post-divorce custody order awarding the father sole legal and physical custody and requiring the mother’s parenting time to be supervised unless a psychological evaluation recommended otherwise. The Court of Appeals held that the trial judge acted within statutory and discretionary limits by declining to interview the nine-year-old child where evidence showed extensive coaching and circumstances indicating the child could not provide an independent, reasonable preference, and by tailoring parenting-time conditions to address the child’s welfare after contentious visitation.


Maier v. Maier, 874 N.W.2d 725 (2015)