Court of Appeals Holds Trial Courts Cannot Impose Additional Preconditions to Filing Motions to Change Custody
Opinion Published: May 13, 2026 (Korobkin, P.J., and Riordan, Mariani, JJ.)
COA Docket No. 377570
Roscommon County Circuit Court
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its best-interest determinations awarding defendant sole legal custody and maintaining the child’s school placement. However, the Court further held that the trial court erred by requiring the parties to undergo psychological evaluations before filing future custody or parenting-time motions, because that requirement conflicts with the statutory framework set forth in MCL 722.27(1)(c).
Facts: The parties divorced in 2019 and initially shared joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. At the time of the divorce, both parties resided in Houghton Lake, but plaintiff later relocated approximately 98 miles away to St. Johns after accepting a teaching position. Defendant remained in Houghton Lake with the child.
Plaintiff filed motions seeking sole legal and primary physical custody, a change in the child’s school enrollment to St. Johns, and a corresponding modification of parenting time. Defendant opposed the motion and also requested sole custody, as well as psychological evaluations for both parties.
After multiple evidentiary hearings, a referee recommended that defendant be awarded sole legal custody, that the child remain enrolled in the Houghton Lake school system, that the existing parenting-time arrangement remain unchanged, and that both parties be required to undergo psychological evaluations before filing future custody or parenting-time motions. Plaintiff objected, and the trial court conducted a de novo hearing but ultimately adopted the referee’s recommendations in full. Plaintiff then appealed, challenging the exclusion of evidence at the de novo hearing, the trial court’s best-interest findings, and the imposition of the psychological-evaluation requirement.
Key Appellate Rulings
A trial court may not impose psychological evaluations as a precondition to filing future custody or parenting-time motions under MCL 722.27(1)(c).
The Court held that the trial court committed legal error by requiring the parties to undergo psychological evaluations before filing future motions regarding custody or parenting time. The Court explained that MCL 722.27(1)(c) establishes the exclusive conditions for modifying custody or parenting time, namely a showing of proper cause or a change in circumstances. By imposing an additional requirement not contained in the statute, the trial court created an impermissible barrier to seeking relief. The Court adopted persuasive reasoning from prior, unpublished caselaw [Mildenberg v Mildenberg, unpublished per cuiram opinion of the Court of Appeals issued Septmeber 29, 2022 (Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 357175 and 358328)], concluding that courts may not impose preconditions that restrict access to modification proceedings when the statutory threshold has been met. Because the psychological-evaluation requirement conflicted with the statutory framework, that portion of the order was reversed.
While psychological evaluations may be ordered after a motion is filed, they cannot be required as a condition precedent to filing.
The Court clarified that its holding does not prohibit trial courts from ordering psychological evaluations in appropriate circumstances. Rather, a court may require such evaluations after a motion has been filed if they are relevant to determining proper cause, a change in circumstances, or the child’s best interests. The error in this case arose from requiring the evaluations before a motion could even be initiated, which improperly limited the parties’ access to the court in contravention of MCL 722.27(1)(c).
Trial courts must rely on permissible tools, such as sanctions, to address repetitive or unwarranted litigation.
The Court further explained that, although courts may have legitimate concerns about excessive or repetitive filings, those concerns must be addressed through lawful means. Trial courts retain authority to impose sanctions or other remedies to manage overly litigious behavior. However, they may not restrict a party’s ability to seek modification of custody or parenting time by imposing additional preconditions to the established statutory framework of MCL 722.27(1)(c).
