GRECIA T DAVENPORT V DENNIS M MOSHOLDER JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GRECIA T. DAVENPORT, f/k/a GRECIA T.
MOSHOLDER,
UNPUBLISHED
September 9, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 295852
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 06-001439-DM
DENNIS M. MOSHOLDER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and ZAHRA and K.F. KELLY, JJ.
ZAHRA, J., (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the conclusion of the majority that “[b]ecause the move would alter DMM’s
established custodial environment, the circuit court erred by declining to examine whether the
move clearly and convincingly would enhance DMM’s best interests. MCL 722.23.” I write
separately because I also conclude the trial court’s finding that the father had an adequate
opportunity to preserve and foster his relationship with DMM, contravened the great weight of
the evidence. The majority’s analysis supports my conclusion:
The record supports that the father enjoyed almost daily contact with DMM,
attended and helped coach his flag football practices, and served as the child’s
scout den leader. DMM and the father regularly read together, played catch and
golf, and worked on science projects of the father’s design. Viewed from DMM’s
standpoint, a move to Georgia would disrupt the child’s ready access to his father
and impair the child’s ability to receive guidance, structure, and comfort from his
father. (Emphasis added.) (Ante at 6)
In short, given the record support that the father played a critical and daily role in the
development and structure of DMM’s life, I conclude the proposed change of domicile denied
the father of the opportunity to preserve and foster his relationship with his son. Accordingly, I
would not remand “for the circuit court to determine whether clear and convincing evidence
supports that the move to Georgia serves DMM’s best interest.” Rather, I would reverse and
remand with instructions that the change of domicile be denied.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.