COA 375182 TIFFANY JEN-NAY BALZESKI V CHRISTOPHER MICHAELL LAVOIE Opinion & Order - PC - Remand & Ret Juris 1/13/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
TIFFANY JEN-NAY BALZESKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
January 13, 2026
12:34 PM
v No. 375182
Kent Circuit Court
CHRISTOPHER MICHAELL LAVOIE, LC No. 22-007189-DC
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and REDFORD and FEENEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant, Tiffany Jen-Nay Balzeski, appeals as of right the trial court order
modifying her custody arrangement with defendant-appellee, Christopher Michaell LaVoie,
regarding their four-year-old child. We vacate and remand for further custody proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTS
This case concerns the party’s custody arrangement of their minor child. In August 2024,
defendant moved to modify the party’s custody arrangement, generally requesting “more custody,”
and claiming that plaintiff was not abiding by the terms of the consent judgment. After the trial
court found that there was a change in circumstances sufficient to review the custody arrangement,
it referred the matter to the Kent County Friend of the Court (FOC) for an investigation and
recommendation. The FOC report recommended that the parties share joint physical custody,
defendant exercise sole legal custody, and the parties exercise full alternating weeks of parenting
time. Plaintiff objected to these recommendations and moved for sole legal and physical custody,
alleging that defendant stalked, harassed, and verbally abused her as well as obstructed the child’s
medical care.
In March 2025, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, with both parties appearing in
propria persona. Plaintiff, defendant, and the FOC investigator testified, and the trial court took
an offer of proof that plaintiff’s friends and family gathered in support would affirm her story. The
trial court did not allow plaintiff to admit any evidence beyond her testimony, reasoning that her
evidence should have been received through the clerk’s office so that defendant had a chance to

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
see it before the hearing. The trial court ultimately adopted the FOC’s proposed order in full,
granting: (1) defendant sole legal custody, and (2) the parties’ joint physical custody with full
alternating weeks of parenting time. Plaintiff now appeals.
II. EVIDENTIARY CONCERNS
On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by precluding her from calling her
friends and family as witnesses and by not receiving her exhibits into evidence at the evidentiary
hearing. We agree.
A. PRESERVATION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because plaintiff attempted to present exhibits and witnesses at the evidentiary hearing,
this issue is preserved for our review. See Hein v Hein, 337 Mich App 109, 114; 972 NW2d 337
(2021). “[W]e review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude
evidence, but preliminary legal questions regarding the admissibility of evidence are reviewed de
novo.” Kuebler v Kuebler, 346 Mich App 633, 653; 13 NW3d 339 (2023). “We review de novo
the interpretation and application of statutes, court rules, and the rules of evidence.” Id. “We
review for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s decision regarding whether to impose discovery
sanctions.” Elahham v Al-Jabban, 319 Mich App 112, 135; 899 NW2d 768 (2017). “An abuse of
discretion occurs when the result falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” Richards v
Richards, 310 Mich App 683, 699; 874 NW2d 704 (2015). A trial court necessarily abuses its
discretion when it makes an error of law. Elizabeth A. Silverman, PC v Korn, 339 Mich App 384,
388; 984 NW2d 536 (2021).
B. ANALYSIS
Witness lists and exhibit lists are elements of discovery, and their purpose is to avoid trial
by surprise by informing the parties of the evidence that may be presented at trial. Grubor
Enterprises, Inc v Kortidis, 201 Mich App 625, 628; 506 NW2d 614 (1993); see Thorne v Bell,
206 Mich App 625, 633; 522 NW2d 711 (1994). MCR 2.401(B)(2) governs pretrial scheduling
orders and provides, in relevant part, that “the court shall establish times for events and adopt other
provisions the court deems appropriate, including . . . the completion of discovery, [and] . . . the
exchange of witness lists . . . .” MCR 2.401(B)(2)(a)(v)(vi) (emphasis added).
In this case, the record does not reflect that the trial court ever entered a scheduling order
in accordance with these proceedings at or after the court scheduled the March 2025 evidentiary
hearing. In failing to comply with MCR 2.401(B)(2), the trial court never instructed the parties
that they were required to exchange witness lists and exhibits before the hearing. The trial court
“must exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting
evidence,” and can therefore reasonably limit the presentation of evidence. MRE 611. We do not
think that it was a reasonable limitation to completely preclude plaintiff from introducing her
proffered evidence, especially considering that plaintiff was a pro se litigant navigating the trial
court procedures without a scheduling order. See MCR 2.401(B)(2); MRE 611. Pro se litigants
are allowed some leniency in pursuing their claims. See Haines v Kerner, 404 US 519, 520; 92 S
Ct 594; 30 L Ed 2d 652 (1972). We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
this regard.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
On remand, the trial court may consider the evidence that it already examined in addition
to any new evidence.1
C. CONCLUSION
We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further custody proceedings consistent
with this opinion. We retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ James Robert Redford
/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
1 This opinion should not be construed to mean that the court is required to admit any and all
evidence in the form of witness testimony or exhibits that a party may offer on remand. Rather, it
was error to exclude all exhibits and witnesses not identified pre-hearing when there was no
scheduling order in place to require the same. On remand, if a party offers evidence, even if
disclosed pre-hearing, that the trial court concludes is inadmissible or irrelevant, this opinion
should not be interpreted in any way to require that the trial court admit such proffered evidence.

-- 3 of 4 --

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on
January 13, 2026
Date Chief Clerk
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
TIFFANY JEN-NAY BALZESKI V CHRISTOPHER MICHAELL
LAVOIE
Docket No. 375182
LC No. 22-007189-DC
Michael J. Kelly
Presiding Judge
James Robert Redford
Kathleen A. Feeney
Judges
For the reasons stated in the opinion issued with this order, we REMAND this case for
further proceedings. We retain jurisdiction. After the remand proceedings conclude, we will review the
decisions that the trial court made during those proceedings and consider any remaining issues in this
appeal. Any challenges to the trial court’s decisions on remand must be raised in this appeal. Therefore,
the parties and the trial court must not initiate a new appeal from an order entered on remand within the
scope of this appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reject the initiation of a new appeal from such
an order.
Proceedings on remand in this matter shall commence within 28 days of the Clerk’s
certification of this order, and the trial court must prioritize this matter until the proceedings are concluded.
The proceedings on remand are limited to this issue.
The parties must serve copies of their filings in the trial court on this Court. Appellant
must file with this Court copies of all orders entered on remand within seven days of entry.
Appellant must ensure the transcript of all proceedings on remand is filed in the trial court
and this Court within 21 days after completion of the proceedings.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge

-- 4 of 4 --