Motion to change custody under the Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Proper cause or a change of circumstances; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; Medical & educational decision making; MCL 722.26a(7)(b); Shulick v. Richards; Best interests of the child; Lombardo v. Lombardo; Whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted; Corporan v. Henton

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-mother’s motion to change custody and modify her parenting time of the parties’ child. The trial court granted plaintiff-father sole custody of the child because of defendant’s substance abuse issues. After she made efforts to address her substance abuse and tested negative on a drug test, it granted her unsupervised parenting time on alternating Sundays and Wednesdays. It eventually granted her joint legal custody and increased her unsupervised parenting time to every other weekend plus two weeks in the summer, but denied her motion for sole custody. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court erred by denying her motion without addressing whether there was a proper cause or change of circumstances to modify its prior order, finding the allegations supporting her motion “did not establish proper cause or a sufficient change of circumstances.” Defendant’s motion to change custody and parenting time “reiterated the parties ongoing dispute regarding [the child’s] medical conditions and presented related questions relating to” the child’s education. “These are plainly important decisions regarding the child that the parties must attempt to agree on before seeking court involvement.” Because the trial court “had only recently granted joint legal custody, it did not err by denying defendant’s motion and entering an order clarifying the parties’ responsibility to co-parent.” The court found that the remainder of her allegations were “not of such a magnitude so as to require an evidentiary hearing.” Affirmed.