Now Accepting New Clients!

FAMILY LAW 67: The court held that the trial court did not apply an incorrect standard or abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff-mother’s motion to change the child’s domicile.


On September 30, 2013, plaintiff filed for divorce. On November 14, 2013, the court entered an order for custody and parenting time awarding plaintiff and defendant joint legal and joint physical custody of the child.  On February 27, 2014, the judgment of divorce was entered. On October 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended motion for change of domicile.  During the proceedings, defendant also filed a motion requesting that the court grant him full custody of the child and grant plaintiff reasonable parenting time. The court held an evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s motion for change of domicile and defendant’s motion to change custody. The trial court concluded that it was in the child’s best interests that plaintiff have full physical custody of the child. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for change of domicile.


Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion for a change of domicile because plaintiff failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the enumerated factors in MCL 722.31(4) favored a change in domicile. We disagree. “This Court reviews a trial court’s decision regarding a motion for change of domicile for an abuse of discretion and a trial court’s findings regarding the factors set forth in MCL 722.31(4) under the ‘great weight of the evidence’ standard.”  This Court enumerated the four-step process a court must undertake when determining whether to grant or deny a motion for change of domicile: First, a trial court must determine whether the moving party has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the factors enumerated in MCL 722.31(4), the so-called D’Onofrio factors, support a motion for a change of domicile. Second, if the factors support a change in domicile, then the trial court must then determine whether an established custodial environment exists. Third, if an established custodial environment exists, the trial court must then determine whether the change of domicile would modify or alter that established custodial environment. Finally, if, and only if, the trial court finds that a change of domicile would modify or alter the child’s established custodial environment must the trial court determine whether the change in domicile would be in the child’s best interests by considering whether the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 have been established by clear and convincing evidence.


As the party requesting the change in domicile, plaintiff had the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change in domicile was warranted. Upon review of the record, the trial court primarily focused on the fact that plaintiff’s new position offered multiple benefits, including financial stability, increased time with plaintiff, and no risk of deployment, all of which had the capacity to improve the child’s life. The court further concluded that it would be possible to work out a parenting time schedule to allow both plaintiff and defendant to maintain their relationship with the child.  The trial court’s findings that Plaintiff established the factors enumerated in MCL 722.31(4) by a preponderance of the evidence are not against the great weight of the evidence.


“It is only after the trial court determines that the moving party has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a change of domicile is warranted that the trial court must determine whether an established custodial environment exists.” The trial court found that an established custodial environment existed with both parents.  The court determined that the child’s change of residence from Sterling Heights to Alpena, and the consequent change in parenting time for defendant, would change the established custodial environment from both plaintiff and defendant to plaintiff. Thus, the court was required to determine whether the change in custodial environment was in the child’s best interests.


Defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff established, by clear and convincing evidence, that it was in the child’s best interests to change the established custodial environment. We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact regarding the best interest factors “under the great weight of the evidence standard.  Plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child’s best interests to move to Alpena.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have to get court approval to move.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

Three reasons to put a power of attorney in place

Originally posted on 11/08/2016 While no one wants to think of the unfortunate possibility of being incapacitated or of a time when we can't handle our own affairs, this circumstance is a real possibility. If something happens and this...

How to approach parents about estate planning

Originally posted on 12/09/2016 Family forms a strong foundation for many people's first and most intimate community. It is important to strengthen these first relationships so even uncommon questions become natural. For those...

PROBATE 44: Petition for Mental Health Treatment

Michigan’s Mental Health Code governs the civil admission and discharge procedures for a person with a mental illness. Specifically, MCL 330.1434 sets forth the procedure and content requirements for a petition for mental health treatment.

Should you get your criminal record expunged?

Originally posted on 04/12/2017 If you have been convicted of a crime, have served your sentence, and have followed all court recommendations, you should be able to put your past behind you and move on with life. Moving forward is critical...

Choosing the right executor for an estate

Originally posted on 05/28/2017 When people are thinking about planning their estate, they often think about trying to minimize the estate tax, keeping their will updated, and keeping items out of probate court; however, there is another...

Understanding how the Miranda warning works

Originally posted on 11/25/2016 Michigan residents who have seen television police shows or movies involving law enforcement have no doubt watched many dramatic scenes with officers quoting something to the effect of, "You have the...

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

A basic introduction to wills

Originally posted on 10/31/2016 It can be difficult to consider the end of our lives when we are in good health. However, lives can change at any moment, so it is wise to be prepared for any situation that may arise. Despite the many...

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000