ANTHONY SCARL V PAULA LEE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ANTHONY SCARL,
UNPUBLISHED
December 2, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 200777
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 95-507437-DC
PAULA LEE,
Defendant-Appellee,
v
LINDA HAMEL,
Third-Party-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Markey and J. B. Sullivan*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this custody dispute, plaintiff appeals as of right the November 16, 1996, order of Wayne
Circuit Judge Michael J. Callahan awarding joint legal custody of Brandy Lee to plaintiff Anthony Scarl1
and third-party Linda Hamel,2 and awarding physical custody of Brandy to Hamel.
The only parties involved in the trial of this matter were plaintiff, who lives in Ohio, and Hamel,
who lives in Detroit. Brandy’s mother, defendant Paula Lee, lives in Canada and did not appear for any
of the proceedings. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision, and this Court obtained
jurisdiction of the matter on January 24, 1997.
On either September 18 or 19, 1997, the parties appeared before Judge Callahan on third
party plaintiff’s motion to show cause for failing to return the child after visitation. Apparently, plaintiff
had allowed Paula to take Brandy to Paula’s home in Canada for a visit and Paula failed to return
Brandy to plaintiff, who was then unable to return Brandy to Hamel. During the hearing on the motion
to show cause, and without notice to either plaintiff or Hamel, Judge Callahan ordered that physical
custody of Brandy be given to Paula, ordered an investigation regarding Paula’s home, and ordered a
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
review of the issue of custody following the investigation.3 Judge Callahan also recused himself from
further proceedings in this matter “due to the fact that I cannot be fair due to the misrepresentations of
the parties.”
Hence, Brandy has apparently been living with Paula in Canada pursuant to Judge Callahan’s
September 19, 1997, order changing custody. However, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
amend the custody order once this Court obtained jurisdiction. MCR 7.208(A). Further, Paula was
not involved in the custody trial and therefore Judge Callahan had no evidence before him that could
possibly have caused him to believe that it was in Brandy’s best interest to change custody. Under
these unusual circumstances, we believe that it is in the best interests of the child to order a new custody
trial in which all three parties can present proofs. Thus, pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), we remand this
case to the trial court for a new trial before a different judge within twenty-eight days of the release of
this opinion.
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
1
Anthony Scarl is Brandy’s father.
2
Hamel is Brandy’s maternal grandmother.
3
Apparently, this change of custody was made in response to Brandy’s letter to Judge Callahan
wherein she indicated that she wanted to live with Paula.
-2
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.
