Roudabush v. Roudabush, Docket No. 21364

• Decision Date: 27 June 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 21364,No. 1,1
• Citation: 62 Mich.App. 391,233 N.W.2d 596
• Parties: Janice Faye ROUDABUSH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Everett ROUDABUSH, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 596

233 N.W.2d 596

62 Mich.App. 391

Janice Faye ROUDABUSH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Everett ROUDABUSH, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 21364.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

June 27, 1975.

Released for Publication Oct. 15, 1975.

Albert G. Landa, Farmington, for defendant-appellant.

Legal Aid Office by Thomas E. Cardinal, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and KELLY and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

KELLY, Judge.

Plaintiff Janice Faye Roudabush and defendant William Everett Roudabush are the mother and father of Shelley Ann Roudabush, born June 24, 1964. A judgment of divorce was entered on December 11, 1967. Custody of the daughter was granted to plaintiff mother.

After a tour in the United States Navy defendant returned to the home of his parents in Michigan. Plaintiff remarried and moved to Cullman, Alabama, with her new husband and Shelley. Her second marriage, from which two children were born, also failed. At the time the custody hearing appealed from was held, plaintiff had married Giles Gilbreth and moved to Addison, Alabama.

Shortly after plaintiff's second divorce, defendant secured an Ex parte order from the Wayne County Circuit Court granting him temporary custody of Shelley. Apparently in the Alabama Court Shelley and the two children born of the second marriage were placed in the custody of the second husband, who was of course not related to Shelley. Defendant went to Alabama and came back to Michigan with Shelley. Defendant then filed a petition asking that he be granted permanent custody of Shelley. After a hearing the trial court declined to alter the terms of the initial divorce judgment. From the decision, defendant father appeals, claiming that the trial court's decision was against the great weight of the evidence. The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings pending this appeal so that Shelley remains with the defendant father here in Michigan until the further order of the Court.

The standard of review for this dispute is found in M.C.L.A. § 722.23; M.S.A. § 25.312(3):

"Best interests of the child's means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated and determined by the court:

'(a) The love, affection and other emotional ties existing between the competing parties and the child.

'(b) The capacity and disposition of competing parties to give the child love, affection and guidance and continuation of the educating and raising of the child in its religion or creed, if any.

'(c) The capacity and disposition of competing parties to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in lieu of medical care, and other material needs.

'(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

'(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home.

'(f) The moral fitness of the competing parties.

'(g) The mental and physical health of the competing parties.

'(h) The home, school and community record of the child.

'(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.

'(j) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.'

Defendant urges that the trial judge erred in not interviewing Shelley as to her desires in the matter. Defendant urged that Shelley was well settled in the paternal grandparents' home here in Michigan and had the care and attention of the grandparents as well as of the father. Defendant also urged that Shelley was well settled in the Michigan Public School System where she had become an accomplished student.

The trial judge was reluctant to interview the child and declined to do so.

The statute permits but does not require the court to take into consideration the preference of the child. We are unable to predicate reversal solely on this issue. However, we do believe that sound practice dictates that the trial judge talk informally with the child, preferably in chambers, when there is such a significant environmental difference as there is in this case. See Bowler v. Bowler, 351 Mich. 398, 406, 88 N.W.2d 505, 509 (1958).

After the trial judge awarded custody to the mother who attended the hearing with her third husband of eight days, motion for rehearing was had and ultimately denied. However, the trial judge granted a stay of proceedings pending appeal which has resulted in Shelley's continuance in the Michigan environment for one entire additional school year. This is certainly a significant developmental period in the life of a child of tender years. Since the custody hearing Shelley had another birthday and by the time any order of this Appellate Court would become effective s...