by P.D. Lesko

NOTE: This is one in a series of articles about the Washtenaw County Trial Court and cases where a litigant or litigants appealed a County Trial Court judge’s ruling. The majority of local Trial Court rulings are upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, but in some instances local judges are found to have ruled erroneously, that they showed bias, abused their discretion, and misruled in egregious ways. While the Michigan Court of Appeals’ (COA) opinions (published and unpublished) are public, those opinions, while delivered to the presiding judge, have to be sought out on the COA’s website using the Michigan Court of Appeals case search.

Washtenaw County Trial Court records show in Mar. 2020 Jonathan F. and his wife Courtney F. filed for a change in parent-time arrangements decreed in their divorce granted in 2019 by a judge in Georgia. Two minor children were involved. Washtenaw County Trial Court Judge Patrick J. Conlin, Jr. oversaw the requested amendment to the parent-time arrangements. Several of his rulings ended up in appeals filed by Courtney F. with the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA); she filed her first appeal in 2021.

In the COA’s latest ruling dated June 2023, on Judge Conlin’s decisions in the F.’s dispute, the three-judge panel wrote in their opinion: “The circuit court twice enabled Jonathan’s illegal behavior—once in the spring of 2021 and again in August 2021. And yet the court held against Courtney her actions to protect her children from being unlawfully taken. This was an egregious error that must be corrected. This favor clearly weighed heavily in Courtney’s favor.”

Judge Patrick J. Conlin, Jr. was elected to the Washtenaw County Trial Court in 2015. He took his seat on the bench in Jan. 2016. His present term expires in Jan. 2027. He serves as the Chief Judge of the Trial Court. In a 2014 interview, he said he was a lawyer whose practice consisted of around 60 percent family law cases. Specifically, as a lawyer, Conlin said he frequently represented husbands going through divorce.

His grandfather, John Conlin, served as first a probate judge, and then a circuit judge. John Conlin’s son, Patrick (Pat Conlin’s father), was a district judge and then elected to a newly created circuit judge seat. Shortly after the election, John Conlin died and Patrick Conlin, Sr. was appointed to his father’s seat.

John Conlin’s brother, Henry, was a circuit judge. John Conlin’s youngest son was 14A District Court Judge Richard Conlin, now retired.

COA Rules Judge Conlin “Rewarded Illegal Behavior,” “Enabled Parental Kidnapping,” and “Vilified” a Mother’s Attempt to Stop Her Children Being Kidnapped

The unpublished COA’s opinion illustrates the almost unlimited power of a Trial Court judge to determine what is best for minor children involved in a parent-time dispute, including rulings on custody and where the children should live. Judge Conlin’s abuse of that power, his misinterpretation of the law and his bias against the children’s mother, resulted in a sharp rebuke from the COA in its June 2023 reversal of his rulings: “Unfortunately, the court minimize[d] Jonathan’s kidnapping of the children and vilify[ed] Courtney’s attempts to stop it.”

The COA’s three-judge panel described Judge Conlin’s decisions in the dispute in shocking terms. He is said to have “reward[ed] parental kidnapping” by a father and “enabl[ed]” the father’s “illegal behavior.”

Finally, the COA sent the case back to the County Trial Court, but ordered Judge Conlin’s removal from the case.

A local lawyer who has practiced for over 25 years, including handling divorces said, “it’s not unusual but infrequent,” that the Michigan Court of Appeals removes a Trial Court judge from a case on remand, particularly when not having been asked to do so by the plaintiff.

“Several Errors” in Assessing the Children’s Best Interests

In the case of the F.’s parent-time agreement and custody dispute, the COA determined the judge made “several errors in assessing the children’s best interests and did not accurately make use of the factors affecting a motion for a change of domicile.” In addition, the COA’s opinion concluded because of the Judge’s continued failure to follow proper procedures to the “detriment of the children, this matter must be reassigned on remand.”

In other words, the COA’s panel of three judges ordered in June 2023 that Judge Conlin be removed from the F.’s divorce proceedings. Trial Court records show the proceedings are ongoing and were taken over by a different judge as of August 2023.

The Court of Appeals opinion goes on to state, “In 2021, we peremptorily reversed a circuit court order entered [by Judge Conlin] without a hearing that permitted Jonathan to keep the oldest child, GF, enrolled in school in Jonathan’s home state of Indiana, an action he had taken in violation of court orders. On remand, the circuit court made several errors in assessing the children’s best interests and did not accurately use the factors affecting a motion for a change of domicile. Based on those errors, the court changed the children’s domicile to be with their father.”

In 2021, the Michigan Court of Appeals three-judge panel chastised Judge Conlin for awarding a father custody of one of the two minor children despite the fact that, “Jonathan F. has repeatedly flouted court orders regarding his children’s education and parenting time, unlawfully keeping his children away from their primary custodian and mother, Courtney F., for months at a time.”

Judge Conlin’s actions were troubling in light of Jonathan F.’s repeated kidnapping of his children. The COA opinion explains how:

“The children went to stay with Jonathan during spring break in 2021. Jonathan enrolled GF in school in Indiana during that visit and refused to release the children to Courtney thereafter. Courtney responded with an emergency motion in the circuit court. The parties then agreed that Courtney would exercise eight weeks of makeup parenting time in the summer of 2021, ending August 7. The order provided that after August 7, ‘the parties shall continue with the regular parenting time schedule until further order of the Court,’ and that the children could not ‘reside outside Michigan without prior approval of the court.’ Despite these clear instructions, Jonathan refused to return the children to Courtney at the end of his August 2021 parenting time and again enrolled GF in an Indiana school.”

The children’s mother went to Indiana with court documents to remove her child from the Indiana school.

From the COA’s June 2023 opinion: “Without conducting a hearing, Washtenaw Circuit Court Judge Patrick Conlin ordered that [the minor child] would attend school in Indiana in Fall 2021 to avoid further disruption. The court ordered that both children would remain in Jonathan’s care during the week and would spend several weekends with Courtney.”

The mother appealed Conlin’s ruling to allow her ex-husband to keep the minor child in Indiana and enroll the child in an Indiana school.

The Michigan Court of Appeals “peremptorily reversed the circuit court’s order.”

In its October 19, 2021 order, the COA’s three-judge panel ordered Conlin to hold, “an expedited evidentiary hearing and resolution of the parties’ custody, parenting time, and school of choice issues. The trial court committed clear legal errors on several major issues when it modified the physical and legal custody and parenting time provisions of the divorce judgment without an evidentiary hearing….”

The “expedited evidentiary hearing” ordered by the COA of Appeals did not take place until Dec. 2, 2021.

The parents attempted mediation to hammer out a custody agreement, but were unsuccessful. The judge continued the “expedited evidentiary hearing” on April 22, 2022. Despite the urgent nature of the proceedings, and the COA’s Oct. 19, 2021 order, the in-person hearing that Judge Conlin told the F.’s he wanted to have to judge the “credibility” of the witnesses, did not occur until June 2022. The circuit court issued its opinion on August 17, 2022, two months after the hearing ended.

In his opinion, Judge Conlin, maintained the parents’ joint legal custody but “changed the children’s domicile to their father’s home in Indiana. Judge Conlin permitted the children to be enrolled in school in Indiana. He then awarded Courtney “one weekend each month of parenting time, plus school holidays and the entire summer,” according to the COA’s 2023 opinion.

One of the most troubling mistakes Judge Conlin made, according to the COA’s judges, was when he found “[t]he moral fitness of the parties involved” disfavored both parents.

Courtney F. had repeatedly testified that her ex-husband had intimidated her, had at one time physically assaulted her, and that she had summoned police in Indiana for help when her ex-husband flouted court-ordered custody arrangements and withheld the children from their mother.

Judge Conlin opined in his August 2022 ruling that her actions in summoning police showed she was “lacking in parental fitness,” demonstrated that she was “immature” and her complaints to police were, perhaps, merely an effort to get her ex-husband into trouble.

The COA judges found that Judge Conlin “was shockingly harsh on this parent for trying to prevent the parental kidnapping of her children. The court’s assessment of the parties’ assessment on this factor went against the great weight of the evidence.”

Michigan Court of Appeals, June 22, 2023

The COA’s judges pointed out that in the original divorce decree entered into by Jonathan F. and Courtney F. in the State of Georgia, while the couple was awarded joint custody, the mother was awarded the final say in any disagreement concerning the domicile, education and welfare of the children. Judge Conlin not only ignored the terms of the original divorce judgement that was still in force, he penalized Courtney F. for seeking help from the Washtenaw County Trial Court in having the terms of that Georgia divorce decree respected by her ex-husband.

The COA’s judges wrote about Conlin’s actions:

“….Jonathan also forced a change in custody. This was an act of parental kidnapping as defined by MCL 750.350a(1) (‘An adoptive or natural parent of a child shall not take that child, or retain that child for more than 24 hours, with the intent to detain or conceal the child from any other parent or legal guardian of the child who has custody or parenting time rights under a lawful court order at the time of the taking or retention . . . .’). The circuit court rewarded Jonathan for his illegal behavior by allowing [the minor child] to remain enrolled in the Indiana school for the remainder of 2021 spring semester.”

Jonathan F. had petitioned for a change in child custody, in particular, he wanted primary custody of his children. Judge Conlin ruled that Jonathan had provided ample evidence that a change of primary custody was justified.

Judge Conlin, in an August 2022 order wrote that before setting a parenting-time schedule, he had turned to MCL 722.27a. MCL 722.27a(7) for legal guidance. This statute identifies factors to consider “when determining the frequency, duration, and type of parenting time” to grant.

The statute includes consideration of (f) “[w]hether a parent can reasonably be expected to exercise parenting time in accordance with the court order,” and (h) “[t]he threatened or actual detention of the child with the intent to retain or conceal the child from the other parent or from a third person who has legal custody.” The Court of Appeals’s reversal pointed out that Judge Conlin, “Despite that Jonathan has repeatedly violated court orders and unlawfully kept the children beyond his parenting time, found these factors ‘not applicable.'”

The COA judges wrote, “The record evidence abundantly supports that Jonathan is willing to ignore court orders and play keep away with the children. The entire parenting-time order was based on the fundamentally erroneous notion that Jonathan would complacently turn the children over to Courtney for her parenting time.”

The COA sent the F.’s back to the Trial Court to work out a new parenting-time agreement with a new judge. Absent a new agreement, the original divorce judgement the two signed in 2019 is in place. This includes Courtney having custody of her children in her home, enrolling them in schools in her home district, and having the final say over disagreements with Jonathan related to what may be in the best interests of the two minor children.