The reasonable preference of the child.

In Kubicki v Sharpe, Jr, __ Mich App __ (#317614, 8/28/2014) the Court of Appeals held that the circuit court legally and harmfully erred by failing to consider the child’s wishes when it made its best-interest determination.

In regard to factor i, the court stated, “The parties did not want the [c]ourt to interview the child. Therefore, his preference has not been considered by the [c]ourt.” Regardless whether the parties wished for an interview, the court was affirmatively required to consider the child’s preference.

 

“One of the . . . factors a trial judge must consider in a custody dispute is the reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient age to express preference.” Bowers v Bowers, 190 Mich App 51, 55 (1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Children of six, and definitely of nine, years of age are old enough to have their preferences given some weight in a custody dispute, especially where there was a prior custody arrangement.” Id. at 55-56.

 

At the time of the evidentiary hearing, the child was 10 years old, and as such, was “definitely . . . old enough to have [his] preference[] given some weight . . . .” Id. “The trial court’s failure to interview the child[] was error requiring reversal.” Id. at 56.
 

Because the circuit court did not consider DLS’s preference, we must vacate the circuit court’s order, and remand for a new custody hearing.