Maryland Family Law Maryland family law opinions and commentary
DETROIT — Where a default judgment of divorce has been challenged on appeal, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support its award of sole custody of the minor children to the plaintiff.
Vacated in part and remanded.
“Defendant appeals as of right a default judgment of divorce. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to set aside the default on the basis that defendant failed to establish good cause. Defendant further asserts that the trial court made insufficient factual findings on the issues of the equitable division of the marital property and child custody. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to set aside the default or in its division of marital property and debts. However, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support its award of sole custody of the minor children to plaintiff. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. …
“Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside default. We disagree. …
“Defendant argues that the trial court failed to make sufficient factual findings regarding the requisite factors to support the property division. We disagree. …
“Defendant further argues that trial court erred by failing to make the requisite findings to support its award of sole custody of the minor children to plaintiff. We agree. …
“… The trial court did not determine whether an established custodial environment existed with either or both of the parties before awarding sole physical and legal custody of the minor children to plaintiff. This was clear error. … Accordingly, we vacate the custody portion of the default judgment of divorce and remand for the trial court to determine whether an established custodial environment existed. ‘On remand, the trial court should consider up-to-date information and any other changes in circumstances arising since the trial court’s original custody order.’ …
“On remand, if the trial court finds that an established custodial environment exists, then it may not change the established custodial environment unless there is ‘clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child.’ … However, if the trial court finds that no established custodial environment exists, then plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that her proposed custody arrangement is in the children’s best interests. … To determine the children’s best interests, the trial court must consider the statutory best-interest factors outlined in MCL 722.23 ‘and explicitly state its findings and conclusions with respect to each of these factors.’ Kuebler v Kuebler, 346 Mich App 633, 671; 13 NW3d 339 (2023) (cleaned up). …
“We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to aside the default and its division of marital property and debts, but we vacate the portion of the default judgment of divorce on the issue of custody and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
