NATHANIEL ALAN DOMINGO V SARAH LEE DOMINGO

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
NATHANIEL ALAN DOMINGO V SARAH LEE DOMINGO
Docket No. 379388
LC No. 2025-043528-DM
Sima G. Patel
Presiding Judge
Allie Greenleaf Maldonado
Adrienne N. Young
Judges
The motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.
The motion for peremptory reversal pursuant to MCR 7.211(C)(4) is DENIED for failure
to persuade the Court of the need for the relief requested in the motion.
Pursuant to MCR 7.205(E)(2), in lieu of granting the application for leave to appeal, the
January 22, 2026 order is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Monroe Circuit Court for
reconsideration of defendant’s show-cause motion. A party who violates a parenting-time order without
good cause may be held in contempt, MCL 552.644(2); Ewald v Ewald, 292 Mich App 706, 718; 810 NW2d
396 (2011), but the parent “must be accorded rudimentary due process, i.e., notice and an opportunity to
present a defense,” Porter v Porter, 285 Mich App 450, 457; 776 NW2d 377 (2009). The trial court violated
plaintiff’s due process rights when it halted plaintiff’s cross-examination of defendant and, without giving
plaintiff an opportunity to testify or present evidence, ordered plaintiff to return the children to defendant.
Additionally, the January 22, 2026 order, which granted defendant possession of the children until further
order of the court, was not an order that defendant be given makeup parenting time for wrongfully denied
parenting time. MCL 552.644(2)(c). Rather, it was an order that temporarily changed custody of the
children. Violations of a parenting-time order do not provide grounds for changing custody. Maier v Maier,
311 Mich App 218, 227; 874 NW2d 725 (2015). On remand, the trial court shall reinstate a week-on/week-
off parenting-time arrangement pending completion of trial. In all other respects, the application for leave
to appeal is DENIED for failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review.
This order is to have immediate effect. MCR 7.215(F)(2). We do not retain jurisdiction.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge

-- 1 of 1 --