Christina Francesca Repp v. Adam Joseph Repp

── Christina Francesca Repp v. Adam Joseph Repp ── Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTINA FRANCESCA REPP, UNPUBLISHED May 22, 2026 Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, 9:02 AM v No. 377110 Cass Circuit Court ADAM JOSEPH REPP, LC No. 2023-000455-DC Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Before: WALLACE, P.J., and LETICA and FEENEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. In an appeal by right, plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee, Christina Francesca Repp, challenges the trial court’s: (1) award of parenting time to defendant-appellee/cross-appellant, Adam Joseph Repp; and (2) decision to change the minor child’s last name. In a cross-appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to award joint legal custody and physical custody and by apportioning most of the travel burden on defendant. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTS Plaintiff and defendant married in December 2020, at which time they lived in Illinois, and they separated in April 2023, at which time they lived in Texas. Following the separation, plaintiff, who was pregnant, moved to Michigan with her parents. Defendant filed for divorce in Texas, and the parties did not communicate except through their attorneys. In September 2023, plaintiff gave birth to the parties’ son. Plaintiff filed a complaint in Michigan to establish custody, parenting time, and child support. By the time a trial began in September 2024, defendant had not met the child, but he had engaged in video visits with him in July 2024. The trial court held a two-day bench trial in September 2024, during which time each party requested primary physical custody. Defendant also requested that the trial court change the child’s name, alleging that plaintiff had named the child without his input, including that she gave the child her maiden name rather than the parties’ surname. Defendant testified that plaintiff had kept the child from him. Plaintiff testified that she had offered parenting time, but because of the child’s young age and feeding needs, she had offered shorter periods of visitation than defendant -1- wanted. Plaintiff explained that she moved to Michigan to have support from her parents, who watched the child while she worked and did not charge her rent or childcare costs. Following the first day of trial, defendant met the child at a public library. In April 2025, the trial court issued its decision, determining that the child had an established custodial environment with plaintiff and ordering that plaintiff have primary physical custody. Further, the trial court granted plaintiff primary legal custody of the child because of the distance between the parties’ and their likely inability to cooperate about decisions for the child. As to parenting time, the trial court ordered that defendant immediately have three video visits with the child each week. After those three weeks, defendant would have alternate-weekend parenting time for six hours each on Saturday and Sunday, either at defendant’s parents’ home in Illinois or at a mutually agreed-upon location approximately halfway between plaintiff’s and defendant’s homes. Each party would be responsible for their own expenses for the visits. After those two months of visits, defendant would have parenting time on alternating weekends from 4:00 p.m. on Saturday through noon on