Opinion
SC: 165799 COA: 362488
01-19-2024
Meghan Marie KUEBLER, a/k/a Meghan Marie O’Neil, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul Andrew KUEBLER, Defendant-Appellee.
Washtenaw CC: 15-002753-DM
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 11, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Cavanagh, J. (concurring).
I concur with the Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal because of the fact-specific nature of this case and because the circuit court has effectively managed these difficult circumstances. However, I write to clarify what I perceive to be an error on the part of the Court of Appeals that cautions against future litigants or courts divining a rule to be applied to different facts.
In making a determination regarding joint custody, a court must consider the general best-interest factors of MCL 722.23 as well as "[w]hether the parents will be able to cooperate and generally agree concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of the child." MCL 722.26a(1)(b). After evaluating the factors in MCL 722.23, the Court of Appeals upheld all but one of the trial court’s findings. In evaluating MCL 722.26a(1)(b)—ability of the parties to cooperate—the Court of Appeals focused on remote events as well as matters that are more properly characterized as "routine" than "important." This was erroneous. However, any future determination on joint custody will necessarily consider current events, whether that determination happens on remand from this Court or on the motion of a party. Therefore, I concur in the denial of leave to appeal.
Welch, J., joins the statement of Cavanagh, J.