## Facts

- The parties were married in 2004 and had one child in 2006.
- In 2007, the father filed for divorce and sought an ex parte custody order, alleging safety concerns related to the mother’s older child from another relationship.
- The trial court initially entered an ex parte order providing joint custody with the child’s residence primarily with the father and limiting the mother’s parenting time in specified circumstances.
- The parties later entered a consent order providing for an equal division of physical custody.
- Due to ongoing conflict, the court ordered a neutral psychological evaluation through the Friend of the Court (FOC).
- The FOC psychologist recommended joint legal and physical custody.
- At trial, evidence was presented that the father used alcohol, withheld the child from the mother without cause, and had been violent in the home on at least one occasion.
- After applying Michigan’s statutory best-interests factors, the trial court awarded the mother sole legal and physical custody.

## Issues

1. What role and weight a trial court must give to an FOC psychological evaluation when determining custody under the child’s best interests.
2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to adopt the FOC psychologist’s recommendation of joint custody and instead awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the custody provisions of the judgment of divorce awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody.
- The court held that psychological evaluations are one piece of evidence among many and are not dispositive in determining a child’s best interests.
- The court concluded the trial court properly considered the evaluation along with other evidence and did not commit reversible error by rejecting the evaluator’s recommendation.
- Applying custody standards of review, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s factual findings or ultimate custody determination.

## Legal Principles

- In custody disputes, an FOC psychological evaluation may inform the best-interests inquiry but does not control the outcome.
- The trial court must make an independent best-interests determination under Michigan’s Child Custody Act and may accept, reject, or give limited weight to an expert recommendation based on the full record.
- Custody findings of fact are reviewed under the “great weight of the evidence” standard; the ultimate custody decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A trial court may depart from an evaluator’s joint-custody recommendation where other record evidence supports a different arrangement.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a sole-custody award to the mother, holding that FOC psychological evaluations are relevant but nonbinding evidence, and that a trial court satisfies its duty by independently applying the statutory best-interests factors to the entire evidentiary record.


McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich. App. 471, 768 N.W.2d 325 (Ct. App. 2009)