Falconer v. Stamps
| Citation | 886 N.W.2d 23,313 Mich.App. 598 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 323392. |
| Parties | FALCONER v. STAMPS. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
313 Mich.App. 598
886 N.W.2d 23
FALCONER
v.
STAMPS.
Docket No. 323392.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2015, at Lansing.
Decided Dec. 22, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
Legal Services of South Central Michigan (by Megan A. Reynolds) for plaintiff.
Before: GADOLA, P.J., and K.F. KELLY and FORT HOOD, JJ.
K.F. KELLY, J.
In a three-way child custody dispute involving plaintiff mother, Kristen Alise Falconer (plaintiff); defendant father, Chadwick Jason Stamps, also known as Chad Meyers (defendant); and paternal grandmother, Donna Bryant Weddington (Intervener), plaintiff appeals as of right because, while plaintiff was awarded sole physical and legal custody of the child,1 the order included extensive grandparenting time with Intervener. We vacate that portion of the circuit court's order that granted Intervener grandparenting time given that the issue of grandparent visitation was not properly before the circuit court.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROBATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
On October 14, 2010, Intervener filed a petition in the Calhoun Probate Court for appointment of a full
guardianship of the two-year-old child under MCL 700.5204(2). Intervener told the probate investigator that plaintiff and defendant lived with Intervener before the child was born and that all three continued to live with Intervener until defendant moved to Arizona to attend college in February 2010 and plaintiff followed in April 2010. Intervener reported that plaintiff and defendant supported the guardianship and that the child had frequent contact with plaintiff and defendant via telephone calls and video calls using Skype, as well as in-person visits. Intervener was granted full guardianship on November 29, 2010.
Intervener filed an annual report with the court on December 2, 2011, indicating that the parents had now returned to Michigan but that the “[p]arents still lack necessary skills to parent child” and that “neither parent is a suitable guardian for [the child].” The report indicated that the “[c]hild loves parents and vice versa” and that visits took place “as much as possible.”
Intervener filed her next annual report on November 30, 2012. She reported that plaintiff had moved out of the home in November 2012 and her whereabouts were “unknown.” Intervener requested that plaintiff's future visits be supervised by her.
On April 9, 2013, plaintiff petitioned to terminate the guardianship. The probate court appointed the child a guardian ad litem (GAL), David Marsh. Marsh's September 20, 2013 report provided:
A. The minor has essentially lived with the guardian, her grandmother, Donna Weddington, all her life.
B. The mother, Kristen Falconer, had a physical abusive and substance abusive relationship with the son of Donna Weddington until sometime in November, 2012 when she moved back to Hastings to be with her family in order to get her life back together.
Ms. Falconer has apparently made great strides in that direction in that she is employed, substance free and has stable housing.
C. The father, Chadwick Stamps, while living in the same household with his daughter, has had little to do with raising her.
D. The guardian/grandmother has done a good job in raising [the child].
E. Both parties blame the other for the inconsistent contact between [the child] and her mother.
F. The minor child desire[s] to remain living with the guardian/grandmother.
G. Child Protective Services makes no specific recommendation, stating that both parties are appropriate.
This writer believes that Kristen Falconer has done a great job in getting her life together. However, she states that she has only been clean since November, 2012 and did so on her own, without any profession[al] help or support.
In addition, there has not been a lot of contact between Ms. Falconer and her daughter, ... the blame for which is unclear.
* * *
The undersigned recommends that this Court institute a specific plan in order to better prepare the minor for potential reunification with her mother.
The probate court set forth a court-structured plan on September 23, 2013, requiring plaintiff to, among other things, submit to drug screening and participate in supervised visitation. The plan included a proposed date of March 24, 2014, for terminating the guardianship.
Intervener filed her next annual report on December 6, 2013, shortly after the structured plan was implemented. In the report, Intervener indicated that
defendant lived in the same home as the child and saw her every day: “[The child] loves being with her dad! She grows more fond every day. She is completely not interested/reluctant to see her mother. She cries every time!” Intervener reported that while “[m]other attends 2 hour meeting/visit once a week with [the child], [the child] does NOT enjoy, is very sad + disheartened by each visit. [The child] should not be forced to have a relationship with her mother until ready! [The child] should continue counseling + perhaps
Miss Falconer could begin attending. [The child] has been abandoned by her mother 5 times + she is reluctant and afraid.” Intervener requested that the guardianship continue because “the father would like to file for full custody but does not yet have funds to hire attorney.”
A couple of days later, Intervener filed a motion to have “another, more appropriate supervisor be chosen” for future supervised visits. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) worker Candace Stack had allowed plaintiff's grandmother, Connie Falconer, to act as supervisor during plaintiff's visits with the child. Intervener complained that Falconer had once tried to “kidnap” the child in 2009 “after a high speed chase.” Included with the motion was a letter Intervener wrote to Judge Michael Jaconette on November 29, 2013, asking how defendant “can apply for custody without an attorney. He has always had physical custody. He has never abandoned her and she adores him.” This, in contrast with plaintiff who has abandoned the child “5 times over the last five years” and “[w]hen she did reside with us there was little to no parenting involved.” Intervener also included screen shots of email exchanges she had with Stack, even though the exchanges did not cast Intervener in a positive light. The exchanges revealed that Intervener had no intention of presenting the child for supervised visits with plaintiff
if those visits included Connie Falconer. The exchanges also show that Intervener did not agree that plaintiff should see the child twice a week.
In a December 1, 2013 report, the child's counselor, Kathleen Keeder, noted that, although the child had been initially standoffish with plaintiff, “Kristen has followed through with all the recommendations and suggestions made to her to help with the bonding process and help [the child] to feel at ease during the sessions. Kristen has been empathic with [the child], she has validated her feelings even when they are hurtful and has been emotionally supportive. It is evidence to this clinician that [the child's] Guardian is not in support of [the child] being reunited with her mother and this is having an adverse affect [sic] on [the child].” In Keeder's opinion, plaintiff demonstrated an ability to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the two needed to be reunited.
On December 11, 2013, Stack filed a report on the case. Stack, like Keeder, reported that plaintiff was doing a good job at her visits with the child, even though the child would say things like “ ‘I hate you’ ” and “ ‘you are not my mom.’ ” Stack reported that not only did Intervener make scheduling visits difficult, but Intervener was also a distraction to the child by waiting outside of the visitation room or in the bathroom down the hall. The child, knowing Intervener was outside the door or in the bathroom, would ask to use the bathroom several times. Intervener refused to leave the area until security guards got involved. Once Intervener was out of the area, the child began to warm up to and interact with plaintiff. Stack concluded:
[The child's] emotional well-being is being jeopardized living with Donna Weddington. Ms. Weddington has
thwarted any and all efforts of reunification between the child and her mother. It is believed that Ms. Weddington is feeding negative thoughts to [the child] about her mother, Kristen Falconer, instead of being supportive of the relationship. It is a travesty that this reunification period has not been more successful, but it is this worker's opinion this is solely due to Ms. Weddington's attitudes and actions. This worker does not anticipate that Ms. Weddington will
To continue reading
Request your trial