Ireland v. Smith
Michigan Court of Appeals
542 N.W.2d 344 (1995)

- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
Jennifer Ireland (plaintiff) and Steven Smith (defendant) were the 16-year-old parents of a daughter, Maranda, who was born in April 1991. Jennifer and Steven never lived together. Jennifer and Maranda lived with Jennifer’s mother and sister, who helped her raise Maranda, while Steven lived with his parents. Steven did not visit with Maranda for the first year of her life but visited her regularly after that. In 1993, Jennifer and Maranda moved to Ann Arbor, where Jennifer was attending the University of Michigan. Maranda attended a university-approved daycare while Jennifer was in class. In 1993, Jennifer sought child support from Steven, and after that, Steven sought custody of Maranda. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that there was an established custodial environment with Jennifer. However, the trial court transferred custody to Steven, finding that of the 12 factors enumerated in Michigan’s Child Custody Act, all were neutral except for one, which favored Steven. The trial court reasoned that Jennifer would be unable to be a full-time student and care for Maranda and, moreover, that it would be preferable for Maranda to be cared for by her paternal grandparents than to attend daycare. Jennifer appealed, and Steven cross-appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gribbs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

