Whether improved mental health & the child’s poor academic performance created changes in circumstances warranting a change in custody & parenting time

Because it was “not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in denying” plaintiff-mother’s motion for a change in custody and parenting time, the court affirmed. She argued that “her improved mental health and the child’s poor academic performance” created changes in circumstance that warranted a change in custody and parenting time. At the time of her motion for change of custody, she “submitted a letter from her therapist stating that she ‘continued to work on addressing healthy communication skills, parenting skills, and assertiveness,’ and that the treating therapist was ‘pleased with [plaintiff’s] efforts and progress in these areas.’” Although the FOC report mentioned that “plaintiff’s actions may stem from unresolved mental health issues, the FOC report did not base its conclusions on plaintiff’s mental health alone. Instead, the report based its conclusions on plaintiff’s unfounded complaints against defendant, including his ability to properly care for the children, which have occurred throughout the course of the proceedings. Those unfounded complaints continued in her motion to change in custody to the trial court when she stated that the child was malnourished, wore the same clothes every day, and was unwashed.” Further, to the extent the FOC report relied on her “mental health to establish custody, the letter that plaintiff provided did not contain any clinical conclusions regarding plaintiff’s mental health, or what has or has not improved.” Thus, the trial court did not err in holding that she “failed to show by a preponderance of evidence that there was a change in circumstance sufficient to warrant a re-analysis of the custodial arrangement.” The court also rejected her “argument that an evidentiary hearing was required, as even though improved mental health may be a factor in deciding whether custody should be modified, the grounds presented here were not legally sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.”