Opinion

Varran v. Granneman

312 Mich. App. 591

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed: Oct 13, 2015
Status: Published
On the bench: Krause, Murphy, Servitto
Cited by: 65 cases
Authority: More cited than 41.0%

The opinion

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

EMILY R. VARRAN, by next friend, JULIA M. FOR PUBLICATION

VARRAN, October 13, 2015

9:10 a.m.

Plaintiff,

v Nos. 321866; 322437

Washtenaw Circuit Court

PETER J. GRANNEMAN, LC No. 03-000271-DC

Defendant-Appellant,

and

DEBORAH GRANNEMAN and JAMES

GRANNEMAN,

Interveners-Appellees.

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and MURPHY and SERVITTO, JJ.

SERVITTO, J.

These matters are before us on remand from our Supreme Court for further consideration

of our June 20, 2014, order dismissing father’s claim of appeal in Docket No. 321866 for lack of

jurisdiction and our July 16, 2014, order dismissing father’s claim of appeal in Docket No.

322437 for the same reason. The Supreme Court directed us to “issue an opinion specifically

addressing the issue of whether an order regarding grandparenting time may affect custody

within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), or otherwise be appealable by right under MCR

7.203(A).” Varran ex rel Varran v Granneman, 497 Mich 928; 856 NW2d 555 (2014); Varran

ex rel Varran v Granneman, 497 Mich 929; 856 NW2d 555 (2014).

Plaintiff Emily Varran (“mother”), who is deceased, and father Peter Granneman

(“father”) are the parents of a minor child, “A”, born on November 17, 2002, when the parents

were both minors. The parents never married. The mother initially had custody of A, but when

A was 8 months old he went to live with father, who resided with his parents, intervening

petitioners (“grandparents”). This arrangement continued until 2005 when A was 2 ½ years old.

At that time, grandparents asked father to leave their home due to hostility and conflicts. A

continued to reside with grandparents and father initially visited A once a week at grandparents’

home. Within a few months, father had A with him on Saturday nights at his apartment.

-1-

Mother passed away in 2007. In 2007, father also began having A with him on Friday

and Saturday nights. In the summer of 2012, A began living with father during the week and

visiting with grandparents every weekend. In the spring of 2013, father reduced A’s visits with

grandparents to every other weekend. In May 2013, father advised grandparents that they would

no longer have overnight visits with A and that any contact between them and A would be under

father’s supervision.

Grandparents, as intervening petitioners, filed a motion for grandparenting time with A in

June 2013. In a July 2013 order, the trial court awarded grandparents temporary visitation with

A every other weekend from Saturday at 10:00 am to Sunday at 6:00 p.m. and set the matter for

an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued a

written opinion on April 25, 2014, wherein it determined that A would suffer a substantial risk of

future harm to his mental and emotional health if grandparenting time were not granted. The

trial court additionally applied the best interest factors set forth in MCL 722.27b and found that it

was in A’s best interest to allow grandparenting time. The trial court thereafter, on May 30,

2014, entered an order providing grandparents with visitation with A every other Saturday from

10:00 a.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. Father claimed an appeal from the trial court’s April 25,

2014, opinion granting grandparenting time and its May 30, 2014, order setting a specific

grandparenting time schedule. As previously indicated, this Court dismissed both appeals and,

on remand, our Supreme Court directed us to address the issue of “whether an order regarding

grandparenting time may affect custody within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), or

otherwise be appealable by right under MCR 7.203(A).” The Supreme Court further directed

that if this Court determines that the lower court order is appealable by right, we shall take

jurisdiction over father’s claims of appeal and address their merits. Varran ex rel Varran, 497

Mich 928; Varran ex rel Varran, 497 Mich 929. We consolidated both appeals.

I. Application of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii)

The first issue for resolution is, as directed by the Supreme Court, whether an order for

grandparenting time affects custody within the meaning of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), making it

appealable as of right under MCR 7.203(A). The issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction to

hear an appeal is an issue reviewed de novo. Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App 127, 130; 822

NW2d 278 (2012). The interpretation and application of a court rule is a question of law that

this Court reviews de novo. Haliw v Sterling Heights, 471 Mich 700, 704; 691 NW2d 753

(2005).

MCR 7.203(A) provides:

The court has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by an aggrieved party from the

following:

(1) A final judgment or final order of the circuit court, or court of claims,

as defined in MCR 7.202(6), except a judgment or order of the circuit court

(a) on appeal from any other court or tribunal;

(b) in a criminal case in which the conviction is based on a plea of guilty

or nolo contendere:

-2-

An appeal from an order described in MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii)-(v) is limited

to the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right.

(2) A judgment or order of a court or tribunal from which appeal of right

to the Court of Appeals has been established by law or court rule.

MCR 7.202(6)(a) defines a “final judgment” or “final order” in a civil case as the following:

(i) the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and

adjudicates the rights and liabilities of all the parties, including such an order

entered after reversal of an earlier final judgment or order,

(ii) an order designated as final under MCR 2.604(B),

(iii) in a domestic relations action, a postjudgment order affecting the

custody of a minor,

(iv) a postjudgment order awarding or denying attorney fees and costs

under MCR 2.403, 2.405, 2.625 or other law or court rule.

(v) an order denying governmental immunity to a governmental party,

including a governmental agency, official, or employee under MCR 2.116(C)(7)

or an order denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)

based on a claim of governmental immunity[.]

The rules of statutory interpretation apply to the interpretation of court rules. Reed v

Breton, 279 Mich App 239, 242; 756 NW2d 89 (2008). The goal of court rule interpretation is to

give effect to the intent of the drafter, the Michigan Supreme Court. Fleet Business Credit, LLC

v Krapohl Ford Lincoln Mercury Co, 274 Mich App 584, 591; 735 NW2d 644 (2007). The

Court must give language that is clear and unambiguous its plain meaning and enforce it as

written. Id. Each word, unless defined, is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and the

Court may consult a dictionary to determine that meaning. TMW Enterprises, Inc v Dep’t of

Treasury, 285 Mich App 167, 172; 775 NW2d 342 (2009).

On appeal, father and grandparents limit their arguments to whether an order regarding

grandparenting time is a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor under MCR

7.202(6)(a)(iii). However, this Court was not tasked by the Supreme Court with only

determining whether an order regarding parenting time was a “final judgment” or “final order”

under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). It was also tasked with determining whether an order regarding

grandparenting time would otherwise be appealable by right under MCR 7.203(A). Varran, 497

Mich at 929; Varran, 497 Mich at 928. Under MCR 7.203(A), this Court has jurisdiction of an

appeal filed from a judgment or order of the trial court, as defined in MCR 7.202(6), MCR

7.203(A)(1), or from a judgment or order by which an appeal of right has been established by

law or court rule, MCR 7.203(A)(2). There is no law or court rule providing an appeal by right

from an order regarding grandparenting time. Thus, under MCR 7.203(A), there is only an

appeal by right from an order regarding grandparenting time if the order is a “final order” or

“final judgment” as defined in MCR 7.202(6). MCR 7.203(A)(1).

-3-

Two definitions of a “final judgment” or “final order” are potentially applicable to the

present case: (1) “the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates the

rights and liabilities of all the parties, including such an order entered after reversal of an earlier

final judgment, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); and (2) “a postjudgment order affecting the custody of a

minor,” MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). We will address each in turn.

The grandparenting time statute provides two ways that an action for grandparenting time

can be commenced. MCL 722.27b(3) provides:

A grandparent seeking a grandparenting time order shall commence an

action for grandparenting time, as follows:

(a) If the circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over the child, the child’s

grandparent shall seek a grandparenting time order by filing a motion with the

circuit court in the county where the court has continuing jurisdiction.

(b) If the circuit court does not have continuing jurisdiction over the child,

the child’s grandparent shall seek a grandparenting time order by filing a

complaint in the circuit court for the county where the child resides.

The grandparents did not commence their action for grandparenting time by filing a

complaint in this matter. Instead, a child custody dispute concerning A was initiated by A’s

mother in the trial court in 2003. Grandparents sought grandparenting time by filing a motion

with the trial court in that case. The trial court found that entry of a grandparenting time order

would be in the best interests of A and entered such an order on May 30, 2014. Because the May

30, 2014, order provided a grandparenting time schedule, it disposed of grandparents’ claim for

grandparenting time and adjudicated the rights and liabilities of father and grandparents. It

cannot be ignored, however, that MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) specifically defines a “final judgment” or

“final order” to mean “the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates

the rights and liabilities of all the parties . . . .” (emphasis added). Use of the singular definite

article “the” before “first judgment” contemplates one order in a civil action. See, e.g., Massey v

Mandell, 462 Mich 375, 382 n 5; 614 NW2d 70 (2000). When A’s mother initiated the custody

case in 2003, the parties to that case were mother and father and the first order that disposed of

the claims and adjudicated all the rights and liabilities of mother and father was the February

2004 consent order regarding custody, parenting time, and support of A. Thus, under the

definition of MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i), the February 2004 consent order was the “final judgment” or

“final order.” Because there was no reversal of the February 2004 consent order, no subsequent

order in the case could be considered a “final judgment” or “final order” under MCR

7.202(6)(a)(i). The May 31, 2014, order in this case is therefore not a “final judgment” or “final

order” under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i).

We next turn to whether an order regarding grandparenting time is a postjudgment order

affecting the custody of a minor under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). Helpful to this Court’s resolution

is a review of the few cases that have addressed MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii). In Thurston v Escamilla,

469 Mich 1009; 677 NW2d 28 (2004), our Supreme Court determined that a post-divorce

judgment order granting one of the parent’s motion for a change of domicile was an order

affecting the custody of the minor and was thus a final order, appealable by right. In that case,

-4-

the divorce judgment had previously awarded joint legal and physical custody to both parties and

the change of domicile would allow one of the parties to move, with the child, to New York.

In Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App at 132-133, a panel of this Court took a close look at

the definition of “affect” when determining whether the denial of a post-judgment motion for

change of custody was an order “affecting the custody of a minor” under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii)

and thus appealable as of right:

Black's Law Dictionary defines “affect” as “[m]ost generally, to produce an effect

on; to influence in some way.” Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.), p. 65. In a

custody dispute, one could argue, as plaintiff does, that if the trial court's order

does not change custody, it does not produce an effect on custody and therefore is

not appealable of right. However, one could also argue that when making

determinations regarding the custody of a minor, a trial court's ruling necessarily

has an effect on and influences where the child will live and, therefore, is one

affecting the custody of a minor. Furthermore, the context in which the term is

used supports the latter interpretation. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) carves out as a final

order among postjudgment orders in domestic relations actions those that affect

the custody of a minor, not those that “change” the custody of a minor. As this

Court's long history of treating orders denying motions to change custody as

orders appealable by right demonstrates, a decision regarding the custody of a

minor is of the utmost importance regardless of whether the decision changes the

custody situation or keeps it as is. We interpret MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) as including

orders wherein a motion to change custody has been denied.

In Rains v Rains, 301 Mich App 313, 321-22; 836 NW2d 709 (2013), the trial court

awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their child in a judgment of divorce. The

judgment also established a parenting-time schedule. A couple of years later, the mother moved

for a change in domicile, seeking to move the child with her to Traverse City and to modify the

parenting time schedule. The father, in response, moved for primary physical custody. The trial

court denied the mother’s request for a change in domicile and this Court found that the mother

presented an appeal from a final order under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii), despite the father’s claim that

because the trial court’s decision effectively left the parties’ custody arrangement as it was, it did

not affect the custody of the minor child. The Rains Court based its decision, in part on Wardell,

supra, noting that under Wardell, a trial court need not change a custodial arrangement in order

for its decision to affect custody. Rains, 301 Mich App at 323. Rather, the inquiry was “whether

the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for a change of domicile influences where the

child will live, regardless of whether the trial court's ultimate decision keeps the custody

situation ‘as is.’ ” Rains, 301 Mich App at 321. From Rains and Wardell, it can be gleaned that

where a motion addresses the amount of time a parent spends with a child such that it would

potentially cause a change in the established custodial environment, an order regarding that

motion is a final order under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii).

MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) requires that the order, to be considered a final order appealable by

right affects the “custody” of the minor child. “Custody,” like “affect,” is not defined in Chapter

7 of the Michigan Court Rules. The term “custody,” as used in the family law context is,

however, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed) as the following:

-5-

The care, control, and maintenance of a child awarded by a court to a

responsible adult. Custody involves legal custody (decision-making authority)

and physical custody (caregiving authority), and an award of custody [usually]

grants both rights . . . .

Further, “the Child Custody Act draws a distinction between physical custody and legal custody:

Physical custody pertains to where the child shall physically ‘reside,’ whereas legal custody is

understood to mean decision-making authority as to important decisions affecting the child’s

welfare.” Grange Ins Co of Mich v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475, 511; 835 NW2d 363 (2013). We

recognize that the Michigan cases thus far addressing MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) have addressed

physical custody and have thus focused their inquiries on the effect that would take place on

where the child would live. It would thus be tempting to conclude that this Court rule only

comes into play when the physical custody of a child is at issue. Although there is a distinction

between physical and legal custody, MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) contains no distinguishing or limiting

language. Based on the plain language of the terms used in MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) then, a

“postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor” is an order that produces an effect on or

influences in some way the legal custody or physical custody of a minor.

The grandparenting time statute, MCL 722.27b, does not grant legal custody or physical

custody of a child to a grandparent who has obtained a grandparenting time order. Thus, an

order for grandparenting time cannot alter or change the legal custody or physical custody of a

child. But that does not mean that an order for grandparenting time cannot affect (i.e., produce

an effect on or influence) the custody of a child. In Thurston, 496 Mich at 1009, for example,

despite the fact that the trial court’s order that granted the mother’s motion for change in

domicile did not alter the award of joint legal and physical custody, the Supreme Court still held

that the order was one affecting the custody of a minor.

According to father, an order for grandparenting time is one that affects the custody of a

minor because it interferes with a parent’s right to determine the care, custody, and control of his

or her child. A parent has a fundamental right, one that is protected by the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his

or her child. Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 66; 120 S Ct 2054; 147 L Ed 2d 49 (2001) (opinion

of O’Connor, J.); In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 409; 852 NW2d 524 (2014). It cannot be

disputed that a grandparenting time order interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to make

decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of a child. Although a parent has denied

grandparenting time, a grandparent may obtain an order for grandparenting time if the

grandparent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of grandparenting time

will create a substantial risk of harm to the child and if the trial court finds by a preponderance of

the evidence that a grandparenting time order is in the child’s best interests. MCL 722.27b(4)(b),

(6). Because a grandparenting time order overrides a parent’s legal decision to deny

grandparenting time, a grandparenting time order interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to

make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child. Thus, where a

parent has legal custody of the child, an order regarding grandparenting time is a postjudgment

order affecting the custody of a minor. MCL 7.202(6)(a)(iii). Because father had legal custody

-6-

of A, we hold that the May 30, 2014, order was a “final judgment” or “final order” under MCL

7.202(6)(a)(iii) and, therefore, appealable by right, MCR 7.202(A)(1).

It is true, as the dissent points out, that the award or denial of grandparenting time did not

change the legal custody arrangement between father and now-deceased mother and did not

deprive father of sole legal custody of A. But a “change” in custody is not what is required

under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii)—the language of the rule requires only an order “affecting” the

custody, which is materially different. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that this dispute does

not concern a motion to resolve a postjudgment dispute between two parents. Generally, where

postjudgment custody issues warrant the trial court’s involvement it is because the two people

who have the same fundamental rights to the care and custody of the same child (including

decision-making authority) are at odds and the court is required to resolve a stalemate. In this

case, however, the dispute concerns the trial court’s award of visitation to a third party—one

who is not vested with the same fundamental rights that are ordinarily reserved only for

parents—and against the express decision of A’s only living parent and thus the only parent with

legal and physical custody. Moreover, during those periods of visitation, this third party will

impliedly have at least some of the rights generally reserved to legal and custodial parents

(whether to and how to treat the child if he is not feeling well, whether to expose the child to

religion and religious practices, what persons, television programs and movies to expose the

child to, etc.).

Based on the above and pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand order in Docket No.

322437, we thus take jurisdiction over father’s claim of appeal and address the merits of the

arguments raised by father. We will also treat the claim of appeal in Docket No. 321866 as an

application for leave to appeal and grant it.

II. Constitutionality of Grandparenting Time Statute

Father argues on appeal that that the grandparenting time statute is unconstitutional. We

disagree.

This Court reviews constitutional issues de novo. Mahaffey v Attorney General, 222

Mich App 325, 334; 564 NW2d 104 (1997). Statutes are presumed constitutional, and this Court

has a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.

Mayor of Cadillac v Blackburn, 306 Mich App 512, 516; 857 NW2d 529 (2014). The burden of

proving that a statue is unconstitutional is on the party challenging the statute. In re Request for

Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1, 11; 740 NW2d 444

(2007).

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, US Const, Am XIV,

prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law. In re Sanders, 495 Mich at 409. This promise of due process includes “a substantive

component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain

fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id. (quotation omitted). Among these fundamental

rights is the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their

children. Id. In other words, “[p]arents have a significant interest in the companionship, care,

custody, and management of their children, and the interest is an element of liberty protected by

-7-

due process.” In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003), reh den 468 Mich 1239

(2003).

MCL 722.27b(4) provides:

All of the following apply to an action for grandparenting time under

[MCL 722.27b(3)]:

***

(b) In order to give deference to the decisions of fit parents, it is presumed

in a proceeding under this subsection that a fit parent’s decision to deny

grandparenting time does not create a substantial risk of harm to the child’s

mental, physical, or emotional health. To rebut the presumption created in this

subdivision, a grandparent filing a complaint or motion under this section must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent’s decision to deny

grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of harm to the child’s mental,

physical, or emotional health. If the grandparent does not overcome the

presumption, the court shall dismiss the complaint or deny the motion.

nonappealable judgment that the burden of proof described in subdivision (b) is

unconstitutional, a grandparent filing a complaint or motion under this section

must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s decision to deny

grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of harm to the child’s mental,

physical, or emotional health to rebut the presumption created in subdivision (b).

Father argues that the parenting time statute is unconstitutional because of the use of

preponderance of the evidence standard. He contends that use of a clear and convincing

evidence standard is necessary to protect a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions

concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. While father contends that the statute

is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to the present case, his argument, as presented,

is actually only a facial challenge. “To make a successful facial challenge to the constitutionality

of a statute, the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the act

would be valid.” Judicial Attorneys Ass’n v Michigan, 459 Mich 291, 303; 586 NW2d 894

(1998). In contrast, an as-applied challenge “alleges a present infringement or denial of a

specific right or of a particular injury in process of actual execution of government action.”

Bonner v Brighton, 495 Mich 209, 223 n 27; 848 NW2d 380 (2014).

“The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process

Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of

confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a

particular type of adjudication.” Cruzan v Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 US 261, 282;

110 S Ct 2841; 111 L Ed 2d 224 (1990) (quotations omitted). “[I]n any given proceeding, the

minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight

of the private and public interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of

error should be distributed between the litigants.” Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745, 755; 102 S

-8-

Ct 1388; 71 L Ed 2d 599 (1982). “Thus, while private parties may be interested intensely in a

civil dispute over money damages, application of a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence’ standard

indicates both society’s ‘minimal concern with the outcome’ and a conclusion that the litigants

should ‘share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.’ ” Id. The United States Supreme Court

has mandated an intermediate standard of proof—clear and convincing evidence—when the

individual interests at stake are both “particularly important” and “more substantial than mere

loss of money.” Id. In Santosky, the United States Supreme Court held that a state, before it

may terminate parental rights, must support its allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Id.

at 747-748, 768-770.

Father is correct that citing Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, the Supreme Court has

recognized that one of the oldest recognized liberty interests is that of a parent to determine the

care, custody and control, including the associations of their children. While the Supreme Court

in Troxel did address a grandparent visitation statute and find it unconstitutional, the statute in

this case is not contrary to Troxel.

In Troxel, 530 US at 57, a Washington statute provided that “[a]ny person may petition

the court for visitation rights” and that “[t]he court may order visitation rights for any person

when visitation may serve the best interest of the child.” Under this statute, the grandparents

moved for greater visitation with their two granddaughters than the children’s mother would

allow. The trial court granted the requested visitation. The United States Supreme Court held

that the Washington statute was unconstitutional. According to the Court, the Washington

statute when applied to the case, infringed on the mother’s fundamental rights as a parent. Id. at

67-68, 72-73. It was never alleged, and there was no finding, that the mother was an unfit

parent. Id. This was important, the Court stated, because “there is a presumption that fit parents

act in the best interests of their children.” Id. at 68. The Court explained that the problem was

not that the trial court intervened but that when it did, it gave no special weight to the mother’s

determination of her daughters’ best interests. Id. at 69. “[I]f a fit parent’s decision of the kind

at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special

weight to the parent’s own determination.” Id. at 70. The Court also noted that there was no

allegation that the mother ever sought to preclude all visitation, and the trial court gave no

weight to the mother’s acquiescence to some visitation. Id. The Court concluded that the

Washington statute was unconstitutional as applied because it failed to accord the determination

of the mother, a fit parent, any material weight. Id. at 72. According to Troxel, then, in order to

protect a parent’s fundamental right to raise his or her children, a visitation statute must require

that the trial court accord deference to the decisions of a fit parent regarding third-party

visitation.

Here, the grandparenting time statute requires that a trial court accord deference to a fit

parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time. There is a presumption that a fit parent’s decision

to deny grandparenting time does not create a substantial risk of harm to the child. MCL

722.27b(4). To rebut this presumption, a grandparent must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the parent’s decision creates a substantial risk of harm to the child. Id. Thus, the

grandparenting time statute does not allow a trial court to grant grandparenting time simply

because it disagrees with the parent’s decision. It thus abides by the Troxel deference

requirement. The extent of deference that must be accorded, however, was not discussed in

-9-

Troxel and forms the heart of father’s argument—that the amount of deference required by the

statute is inadequate and thus renders the statute unconstitutional.

On this issue, father relies principally on Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247; 771 NW2d 694

(2009). In Hunter, 484 Mich 247, the Supreme Court addressed the conflicting presumptions

that arise under the CCA when there is a custody dispute between a parent and a third-party with

whom a child has an established custodial environment. Under MCL 722.25(1), in a custody

dispute between a parent and a third party, a court “shall presume that the best interests of the

child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is shown by

clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 258. Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), a court may not modify a

previous custody order or issue a new custody order so as to change the established custodial

environment unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interest

of the child. Id. at 259. The Supreme Court held that, in order to protect a fit parent’s

fundamental constitutional rights, the parental presumption of MCL 722.25(1) must control over

the presumption in favor of an established custodial environment in MCL 722.27(1)(c). Id. at

263-264. The Supreme Court then addressed a “remaining constitutional question” regarding the

amount of deference due under Troxel to fit parents. Id. at 264. It concluded that MCL

722.25(1) provided sufficient deference to fit parents’ fundamental rights to the care, custody,

and management of their children because it requires, in order to rebut the parental presumption,

clear and convincing evidence that custody by the parent is not in the child’s best interests. Id. at

264-265. The Supreme Court summarized the clear and convincing evidence standard:

The clear and convincing evidence standard is “the most demanding

standard applied in civil cases . . . . This showing must “ ‘produce[] in the mind

of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as

to enable [the fact-finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the

truth of the precise facts in issue.’ ” [Id. at 265.]

The Supreme Court concluded that requiring a third party to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that it is not in the child’s best interests for the parent to have custody “was entirely

consistent with Troxel’s holding.” Id. It explained: “Although a fit parent is presumed to act in

his or her child’s best interests, a court need give the parent’s decision only a ‘presumption of

validity’ or ‘some weight.’ That is precisely what MCL 722.25(1) does when it requires clear

and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.” Id.

Hunter is minimally instructive in the present case. The Supreme Court in Hunter merely

concluded that MCL 722.25(1) provided sufficient deference to a fit parent’s fundamental rights

to the care, custody, and management of a child because it required, in order to rebut the parental

presumption, clear and convincing evidence that custody by the parent was not in the child’s best

interest. However, in Hunter, a preponderance of the evidence standard was not at issue, nor was

it ever discussed. The Supreme Court never said that a clear and convincing evidence standard,

rather than a preponderance of the evidence standard, was constitutionally mandated. It simply

stated that the standard, as stated in the statute was sufficient.

As previously stated, the grandparenting time statute is consistent with Troxel. Because

the grandparenting time statute presumes that a fit parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time

-10-

does not create a substantial risk of harm to the child, and because it requires a grandparent to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent’s decision creates a substantial risk of

harm to the child, the statute gives deference to the decisions of a fit parent. DeRose v DeRose,

469 Mich 320, 332; 666 NW2d 636 (2003).1 It does not allow the trial court to grant

grandparenting time simply because it disagrees with the parent’s decision. Id. A parent’s

fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is

not most at jeopardy when a grandparent petitions a court for grandparenting time. See Hunter,

484 Mich at 269. An order granting grandparenting time does not sever, permanently and

irrevocably, a parent’s parental rights to a child, and it remains subject to modification and

termination. Thus, we conclude that, because due process concerns are not at their highest in

cases involving requests for grandparenting time, see id., the requirement that grandparents, in

order to rebut the presumption given to a fit parent’s decision, prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of harm

to the child is sufficient to protect the fundamental rights of parents. Father’s facial challenge to

the constitutionality of the grandparenting statute thus fails.

III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Father next contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear grandparents motion

for grandparenting time. We disagree.

As explained in Issue I, supra, there are two ways that an action for grandparenting time

can be commenced: (1) “[i]f the circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over the child, the

child’s grandparent shall seek a grandparenting time order by filing a motion with the circuit

court in the county where the court has continuing jurisdiction” and (2) “[i]f the circuit court

does not have continuing jurisdiction over the child, the child’s grandparent shall seek a

grandparenting time order by filing a complaint in the circuit court for the county where the child

resides.” MCL 722.27b(3).

Father argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over grandparents’

motion for grandparenting time because it did not have continuing jurisdiction over A.

According to father, the trial court did not have continuing jurisdiction over A because father

was awarded sole legal and physical custody over A in 2004 and mother died in 2007.

Subject-matter jurisdiction:

The Legislature rewrote the grandparenting time statute in 2004 (2004 PA 542) after the

DeRose Court, 469 Mich at 333-334, held that the grandparenting time statute was

unconstitutional under Troxel because it did not require that any deference be given to the

decisions that a fit parent makes for his or her child. The Legislature included MCL

722.27b(4)(a) in the rewritten grandparenting time statute so that the statute would comply with

Troxel and DeRose. See Keenan v Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 678-679,; 739 NW2d 681

(2007) where this Court stated that Troxel and DeRose “directly led to the 2004 amendment of

MCL 722.27b” and that, in response to the those decisions, the Legislature attempted to correct

the constitutional infirmities of the grandparenting time statute.

-11-

is the right of the court to exercise judicial power over that class of cases, not the

particular case before it, but rather the abstract power to try a case of the kind or

character of the one pending; and not whether the particular case is one that

presents a cause of action, or under the particular facts is triable before the court

in which it is pending, because of some inherent facts which exist and may be

developed during the trial. [Joy v Two-Bit Corp, 287 Mich 244, 253-254; 283

NW 45 (1938) (quotation omitted).]

A trial court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders a trial court’s judgment void. Bowie v

Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56; 490 NW2d 568 (1992); Altman v Nelson, 197 Mich App 467, 472-473;

495 NW2d 826 (1992). However, the only support father has cited in support of his argument is

an unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals. Unpublished decisions are not

binding upon the Court. MCR 7.215(C)(1).

Trial courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody disputes. Bowie, 441

Mich at 39. Additionally, the power to hear and decide requests by a child’s grandparents for

grandparenting time has not been prohibited or given exclusively to another court. See id.

Pursuant to the CCA, when a child custody dispute has been submitted to the trial court, either as

an original action under the CCA or has arisen incidentally from another action in the trial court,

the trial court may, among other actions, “upon petition consider the reasonable grandparenting

time of maternal or paternal grandparents as provided in [MCL 722.27b.]” MCL 722.27(f).

Accordingly, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear grandparents’ motion for

grandparenting time. It had the right to exercise judicial power over requests by a child’s

grandparents for grandparenting time. Joy, 287 Mich at 253-254.

IV. Interpretation of MCL 722.27b

Father contends that to obtain grandparenting time under the statute, a grandparent must

first demonstrate that a fit parent’s decision to deny grandparenting time creates a substantial risk

of harm to the child and that he did not deny, i.e., refuse or reject all visitation between

grandparents and A. According to father, grandparents are thus not eligible for relief under MCL

722.27b and the trial court erred in interpreting the word “deny” in any other manner in order to

allow relief.

“Orders concerning grandparenting time must be affirmed on appeal unless the trial

court’s findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence, the court committed a

palpable abuse of discretion, or the court made a clear legal error on a major issue.” Keenan v

Dawson, 275 Mich App 671, 679; 739 NW2d 681 (2007). Issues of statutory interpretation are

questions of law. Koontz v Ameritech Servs, Inc, 466 Mich 304, 309; 645 NW2d 34 (2002).

Questions of law are reviewed for clear legal error. McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123,125;

580 NW2d 485 (1998). “Clear legal error occurs when the trial court errs in its choice,

interpretation, or application of the existing law.” Sturgis v Sturgis, 302 Mich App 706, 710; 840

NW2d 408 (2013).

The goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of

the Legislature. Tevis v Amex Assurance Co, 283 Mich App 76, 81; 770 NW2d 16 (2009), lv den

485 Mich 926 (2009). The rules of statutory construction serve as guides to assist in determining

-12-

legislative intent with a greater degree of certainty. Niles Twp v Berrien Co Bd of Comm’rs, 261

Mich App 308, 313; 683 NW2d 148 (2004). Statutory language should be reasonably construed,

keeping in mind the purpose of the statute. Rose Hill Ctr, Inc v Holly Twp, 224 Mich App 28,

32; 568 NW2d 332 (1997). Once the intention of the Legislature is discovered, it must prevail

over any conflicting rule of statutory construction. Thompson v Thompson, 261 Mich App 353,

362 n 2; 683 NW2d 250 (2004).

The first criterion in determining legislative intent is the language of the statute. Tevis,

283 Mich App at 81. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the Legislature is presumed

to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and a court must enforce the statute as written.

Ameritech Publishing, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 281 Mich App 132, 136; 761 NW2d 470 (2008),

lv den 482 Mich 1071 (2008). Every word of a statute is presumed to have some meaning, and

this Court must avoid an interpretation that renders any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.

Mich Farm Bureau v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 292 Mich App 106, 132; 807 NW2d 866

(2011). Effect should be given to every sentence, phrase, clause, and word. Id. Each word,

unless defined, is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and the Court may consult a

dictionary to determine that meaning. TMW Enterprises, Inc, 285 Mich App at 172.

Additionally, “a court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the

manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.” Roberts v

Mecosta Co Gen Hosp, 466 Mich 57, 63; 642 NW2d 663 (2002).

Another rule of statutory construction is that statutory provisions are not to be read in

isolation. Robinson v Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 15; 782 NW2d 171 (2010). Rather, to discern the

true intent of the Legislature, statutory provisions must be read as a whole. Id.

Father’s argument is premised upon MCL 722.27b(4) which states, in relevant part, as

follows:

All of the following apply to an action for grandparenting time under [MCL

722.27b(3)]: