Opinion
361764
08-26-2022
Danielle Christine Mackey v. Hannah Anne Mackey
LC No. 21-110629-DM
Michael J. Riordan Presiding Judge Christopher M. Murray, Kristina Robinson Garrett Judges.
ORDER
The motion to waive fees is GRANTED for this case only.
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
Pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(4) and MCR 7.216(A)(7), the motion for peremptory reversal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, the Wayne Circuit Court's June 9, 2022 order is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with this order. We do not retain jurisdiction.
By imposing dismissal as a sanction without first considering any other potential sanctions on the record-such as monetary sanctions or vacating the default against defendant-the trial court abused its discretion. See Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich.App. 501, 506-507; 536 N.W.2d 280 (1995) ("Before imposing such a sanction, the trial court is required to carefully evaluate all available options on the record and conclude that the sanction of dismissal is just and proper. Here, because the trial court did not evaluate other available options on the record, it abused its discretion in dismissing the case.") (citation omitted; emphasis added). Moreover, given that the trial court had already entered an interim parenting-time order, before dismissing this matter as a sanction against plaintiff, the court should have expressly considered whether dismissal might have prejudiced the minor children-particularly R.M.-by disrupting their established custodial environment and delaying resolution of this case. SeeAllardvAllard (On Remand), 318 Mich.App. 583, 601; 899 N.W.2d 420 (2017) ("Time and again, our Courts have recognized that the parties to a divorce cannot, even by mutual agreement, relieve a circuit court of its duty to independently safeguard the interests of minor children who are involved."); Pierron v Pierron, 282 Mich.App. 222, 243; 765 N.W.2d 345 (2009) ("The purposes of the [Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.,] are to promote the best interests of the child and to provide a stable environment for children that is free of unwarranted custody changes."). Hence, we grant the motion for peremptory reversal, but only insofar as plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to state and evaluate all the necessary findings to support the sanction that it imposed. In all other respects, we deny the motion for peremptory reversal. On remand, the trial court shall reconsider its disputed ruling in light of this order.
This order is to have immediate effect, see MCR 7.215(F)(2), and represents our final judgment in this matter, see MCR 7.215(E)(1). We do not retain jurisdiction.