Jeremy Robert Giordana V Jenna Rae Giordana

Key Facts

Issues

• The trial court denied the defendant-mother's request for a medical examination of the plaintiff-father, who has genetic markers for Huntington's disease (HD), finding no abuse of discretion. The court considered testimony from neurologists and the plaintiff's primary care physician, who concluded he was not exhibiting symptoms of HD. The defendant-mother argued the exam was necessary to assess potential cognitive or physical impairments affecting parenting, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
• The defendant-mother alleged judicial bias during the custody hearing, citing the trial judge's handling of evidence authentication and courtroom interactions. The appellate court found no evidence of bias, noting the judge's role in clarifying testimony and maintaining control. The judge's critical remarks toward the defendant's counsel were deemed part of managing the trial, not disqualifying bias. The court emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality and the lack of demonstrated prejudice.
• The trial court awarded sole legal custody to the plaintiff-father despite granting primary physical custody to the defendant-mother. The court found the defendant-mother had alienated the children from the plaintiff and manipulated their testimony regarding abuse claims. The appellate court upheld this decision, citing the trial court's credibility findings and the statutory basis for separate physical and legal custody arrangements. The court emphasized the children's best interests and the feasibility of joint custody given the circumstances.

Holdings

• The court validated the trial court's decision to award sole legal custody to plaintiff-father despite granting defendant-mother primary physical custody, emphasizing the need for decision-making authority to address alienation and ensure the children's welfare.
• The court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant-mother's request for a medical examination of plaintiff-father, citing insufficient evidence of Huntington's disease symptoms and the lack of good cause under MCR 2.311.
• The court upheld the trial court's order changing parenting-time schedules and awarding sole legal custody to plaintiff-father, based on findings of parental alienation by defendant-mother and the children's best interests.
• The court rejected defendant-mother's claim of judicial bias, finding no evidence of prejudice or improper conduct by the trial judge despite contentious interactions during the hearing.

Remedies

• The trial court denied the defendant-mother's request for a medical examination of the plaintiff-father because there was no good cause to order such an examination. The court found that the plaintiff-father was not exhibiting symptoms of Huntington's disease and that his mental health issues were due to the separation from his children rather than the disease.
• The court modified the parenting-time schedules to allow the plaintiff-father phased-in parenting time, primarily in the summers, and awarded him sole legal custody. This decision was based on the defendant-mother's interference with the children's relationship with the father and her manipulation of the children's testimony regarding abuse allegations. The court determined that the defendant-mother's actions warranted a change in legal custody to ensure the children's best interests.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to evaluate the defendant-mother's challenge to the custody modification under MCL 722.27(1)(c). It concluded that her allegations of abuse and instability were not supported by the record, while her actions to alienate the children were credible and justified the custody change.
• The trial court's decision not to order a medical examination of the plaintiff-father was based on the defendant-mother's failure to meet her burden of proving good cause under MCR 2.311. The court emphasized that merely disagreeing over mental health is insufficient to warrant an examination and required evidence of symptoms or functional impairments.
• The trial court was presumed impartial, and the defendant-mother failed to demonstrate bias or prejudice sufficient to disqualify the judge. The court's interactions with counsel, while contentious, were framed as efforts to maintain courtroom decorum rather than favoritism.
• The custody order was reviewed under MCL 722.28 for abuse of discretion and adherence to the great weight of evidence standard. The court's factual findings and custody determination were affirmed as reasonable and within the range of principled outcomes.
• The court's authority to award sole legal custody to the plaintiff-father while granting primary physical custody to the defendant-mother was based on MCL 722.26a(7). This arrangement was deemed equitable given the defendant-mother's interference with the plaintiff-father's parenting and the children's best interests.

Precedent Name

• Eldred v Ziny
• Vodvarka v Grasmeyer
• Berger v Berger
• Kern v Kern-Koskela
• Burris v KAM Transport, Inc (On Remand)
• Wright v Wright
• In re MKK
• Dailey v Kloenhamer
• In re Susser Estate

Cited Statute

• Michigan Court Rules
• Child Custody Act
• Michigan Rules of Evidence

Judge Name

• Adrienne N. Young
• Philip P. Mariani
• Allie Greenleaf Maldonado

Passage Text

• But 'a trial judge's remarks made during trial, which are critical of or hostile to counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not establish disqualifying bias.' In re MKK, 286 Mich App at 567.
• We affirm the order denying defendant-mother's request for a medical examination of plaintiff-father, and affirm the order changing parenting-time schedules of the parties and awarding sole legal custody to plaintiff-father.
• The trial court concluded, after hearing testimony from two neurologists, and plaintiff-father's primary care physician (PCP), Dr. Spring Madosh, that an examination was not warranted because plaintiff-father was not yet exhibiting symptoms of HD.