Divorce; Sole physical custody; Proper cause or a change in circumstances; Child’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Factors (b), (d), (e), & (f); Whether a party was entitled to equitable division of the marital home purchased by the other party before the marriage; MCL 552.401

The court held that the trial court did not err by determining that granting plaintiff-mother sole physical custody of the parties’ child was in the child’s best interests. Also, it was “not left with a firm conviction that the trial court’s determination not to divide the appreciation of the home was inequitable.” As to the best interest factors, the trial court concluded that “factors (b), (d), (e), (f), and (h) favored plaintiff, and that factors (a), (c), (g), (j), and (k) did not favor either party.” Defendant-father did not challenge the determination as to factor (h), but he argued that the trial court erred by holding that factors (b), (d), (e), and (f) favored plaintiff. As to factor (b), even “though there was evidence supporting that defendant loved the minor child, gave affection to the minor child, and would perhaps continue to raise the minor child in his religion or creed, there was also evidence that plaintiff actively disciplined the minor child, attended parent-teacher conferences, was engaged in the minor child’s progress in school, and took him to church with her.” Thus, the trial court’s finding as to this factor was not against the great weight of the evidence. As to factors (d) and (e), the record evidence showed that the “child had a stable, satisfactory environment with plaintiff more than defendant, and plaintiff’s living arrangements with her daughter presented more permanence of the family unit than defendant’s lack of living arrangements did. The trial court’s finding regarding these factors was not against the great weight of the evidence.” Further, the “trial court’s decision to weigh defendant’s alcohol consumption in its factor (f) analysis was not an abuse of discretion.” As to the home, which plaintiff purchased before the marriage, the court rejected defendant’s argument that MCL 552.401 applied. Affirmed.