Divorce; Child custody; The statutory best-interest factors; Expert testimony; MRE 702; Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc; Evidentiary hearing; Right to a fair trial in a custody case; In re JK; De novo hearing; Custody assessment; Motion for reconsideration; Impeachment evidence; Judicial bias; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a); In re Contempt of Henry

The court held that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to admit plaintiff-mother’s expert’s testimony, and (2) there were no due process violations. The trial court ordered joint legal custody, with primary physical custody granted to plaintiff and parenting time granted to defendant-father. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request to admit a witness who was an expert in coercive control and intimate partner violence. The testimony of the “witnesses, paired with the trial court’s twenty years of experience in presiding over family law cases, was more than sufficient to present a clear picture of plaintiff’s allegations of domestic violence.” Indeed, because the “witnesses had firsthand knowledge of plaintiff’s circumstances prior to the divorce, the evidence was far more relevant than the evidence that could have been obtained from an expert witness who had never met the children or interacted with the family.” In this bench trial, “the trier of fact was the court itself. Ultimately, plaintiff has not given this Court cause to question the trial court’s reliance on its training and experience.” The court also found no due process violations in this case. “[T]he combination trial and de novo hearing cured the alleged errors raised by plaintiff. Not only did plaintiff testify extensively, but the trial court issued a new decision that was based on the evidence admitted at trial, barring one exception that cut in plaintiff’s favor.” In addition, she did not show “any reliance on the custody assessment, let alone reliance that rendered the trial court’s findings against the great weight of the evidence, or its ultimate custody determination a palpable abuse of discretion.” Further, the court’s review of her motion for reconsideration compelled it “to conclude that plaintiff’s ‘palpable error’ was that the trial court did not adopt her view of the evidence or refrain from exercising its right to control the proceedings in order to arrive at the truth effectively and efficiently.” Moreover, the “trial court properly interpreted and applied the rules of evidence to prohibit plaintiff from using extrinsic evidence to prove a specific instance of conduct for purposes of attacking the witness’s credibility.” Finally, plaintiff did “not overcome the presumption that the trial judge was unbiased. She has not suggested any extrajudicial event or information that could serve as a source of bias, and she cannot establish grounds for disqualification or prejudice on the basis of repeated rulings against her.” Affirmed.