Divorce; Sole legal custody

The court concluded that plaintiff-mother “established by clear and convincing evidence it was in the children’s best interests to grant her sole legal custody. The trial court’s decision to award plaintiff sole legal custody [did] not constitute an abuse of discretion.” Defendant-father “argued granting plaintiff sole legal custody would not resolve the parties’ communication issues. While this reality was acknowledged by the referee, we assume the referee hoped, in rendering this decision, the placement of authority for major decisions involving the children with plaintiff would preclude the necessity of certain communications between the parties, which historically have been negative and contentious. The trial court adopted the referee’s recommendation. By granting plaintiff sole legal custody and reducing the need for the parties to communicate, some of the ongoing tensions could be alleviated. This ruling does not negate defendant’s ability to ‘decide all routine matters concerning the child[ren]’ while in his custody, in accordance with MCL 722.26a(4).” Also, it was “clear that retaining joint legal custody was improper because it is likely defendant will not make decisions in accordance with the children’s best interests. At times, he did not express concern about the children’s issues, such as [one of the children’s] self-stimulation, encopresis, and speech issues. Defendant disapproved of the children’s pediatrician, with whom the children had a long-standing relationship. Plaintiff complained defendant, who is a nurse, sometimes took the children’s medical care ‘into his own hands.’” In sum, the court held that “joint custody would cause the children further harm and would not be in their best interests given the parties’ long-standing acrimonious relationship.” Affirmed.