Motion to modify custody; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Proper cause or change of circumstances; McRoberts v Ferguson; Child’s school performance & medical care; Contempt

The court held that the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff-mother did not show proper cause or a change of circumstances warranting consideration of modifying custody of the parties’ child (A) was not against the great weight of the evidence. But it was left with a “firm and definite conviction” the trial court erred in finding plaintiff in contempt for failing “to physically eject her unwilling daughter from the car” for a court-ordered return to defendant-father. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s amended motion to modify custody, reversed the contempt ruling, and remanded. Plaintiff contended that the trial court’s findings about A’s “school performance and medical care were against the great weight of the evidence.” Plaintiff asserted that these “matters alone established proper cause to revisit the existing custody order.” However, the court concluded the evidence as to A’s “school performance barely conflicted and ultimately demonstrated that the child performed well in school.” Plaintiff additionally contended that lapses in defendant’s medical care of A constituted proper cause. She testified that he “refused to communicate with her” about A’s medical care. He testified that he did communicate with her on this issue. “Neither party spent much time discussing this issue before the referee; rather, the focus was on mother’s contention that father failed to provide for [A’s] medical care and treatment. The trial court” found that plaintiff did not offer evidence showing that defendant deprived A “of proper medical care and treatment.” The court concluded she did not show that this “finding was against the great weight of the evidence.” As to the contempt issue, the court found that the fact defendant’s “wife spanked a 12-year-old and that [A] preferred to live with her mother” supported plaintiff’s testimony that A was unwilling “to voluntarily return to her father’s home despite the court’s order, and substantiates mother’s testimony that [A] strenuously resisted even when told she had to do so. The evidence” also supported that plaintiff “found herself in an emotionally fraught situation, forced to choose between compelling her unwilling 12-year-old daughter to a place where she had been physically punished, and allowing the child to remain in a place where she felt safe.”