Summary
In Thurston v Escamilla, 469 Mich 1009; 677 NW2d 28 (2004), our Supreme Court determined that a post-divorce judgment order granting one of the parent's motion for a change of domicile was an order affecting the custody of the minor and was thus a final order, appealable by right.
Summary of this case from Varran v. GrannemanOpinion
No. 125142.
February 27, 2004.
Summary Disposition.
No. 125142. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the September 10, 2003, order of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for plenary consideration. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The divorce judgment awarded joint legal and physical custody to both parties, and there was, in fact, an established joint custodial environment under which defendant had nearly daily contact with the children. The August 12, 2003, order of the Saginaw Circuit Court granting plaintiff's motion for change of domicile does not mention a change of custody, but by permitting the children to be removed by plaintiff to the state of New York, the order is one " affecting the custody of a minor . . ." within the meaning of MCR 7.202(7)(a)(iii) (emphasis supplied). See also MCL 722.31. Therefore, the August 12, 2003, order is final, and appealable by right. MCR 7.203(A)(1). Jurisdiction is not retained. Court of Appeals No. 250568.