Background
Dane and Tonya Hazelton divorced in 2019 and initially shared legal and physical custody of their older child, SH. They later reconciled, lived together, and had a second child, LH. After the relationship deteriorated again, Dane petitioned in January 2024 for exclusive use of the marital home and a custody determination. Both parties violated an interim nesting arrangement, and Tonya was arrested for domestic violence in February 2024. A personal protection order was entered, and her parenting time became supervised, although she was later acquitted of the criminal charge.
At a multi-day custody hearing, the circuit court received testimony from the parties and other witnesses, video and audio evidence, and a Friend of the Court psychological report prepared by Stephanie Pyrros-Hensen. During one witness’s testimony, Tonya texted the witness in an attempt to influence her testimony, prompting the court to discount their credibility. After finding that the children had established custodial environments with both parents and applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, the court awarded Dane sole legal and physical custody. It also established a graduated schedule leading to unsupervised and overnight parenting time for Tonya and required her to participate in and benefit from individual therapy.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Tonya waived her hearsay objection to the psychological report by failing to object to the order expressly waiving such objections, participating in the evaluation, relying on the report herself, and permitting its admission at trial subject only to redaction of confidential information. The circuit court also made its own factual findings rather than simply adopting the psychologist’s recommendations, and Tonya had an adequate opportunity to provide information during the evaluation process.
The appellate court further held that Tonya’s criminal acquittal did not prevent the family court from considering evidence of her aggressive conduct. Criminal and custody proceedings use different standards and serve different purposes, and the conduct was relevant to parenting ability, coparenting, domestic violence, and the children’s best interests. The findings that the challenged best-interest factors favored Dane were not against the great weight of the evidence, and the award of sole legal and physical custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A party may waive hearsay objections to a Friend of the Court psychological report through agreement, participation, reliance on the report, and failure to object when it is admitted.
- An acquittal on a domestic-violence charge does not bar a custody court from independently considering the underlying conduct under the civil custody framework.
- A trial court may give substantial weight to a psychological evaluation if it independently assesses the evidence and makes its own best-interest findings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the broad evidentiary context in which Michigan courts evaluate a child’s best interests. Conduct relevant to parental fitness and the effect of domestic conflict on children may be considered even when it did not result in a criminal conviction.
It also illustrates the deference appellate courts give trial judges on credibility and best-interest findings, particularly when the trial court reviews extensive testimony and recordings, interviews the children, and provides detailed findings supporting its custody decision.