Custody; Whether the clear-&-convincing-evidence standard applied; MCL 722.1006 (part of the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act); Established custodial environment (ECE); Physical custody; Best-interest factors findings; Change of domicile; Parenting-time

The court found no merit in plaintiff-father’s “claim that the trial court committed clear legal error by not applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard as part of” its custody and domicile determinations. It also concluded the trial court’s findings on best-interest “factors (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (j) were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Thus, it did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ child (AJC) to defendant-mother. Further, its findings on “change-of-domicile factors (b) and (c) were not against the great weight of the evidence,” and it did not commit clear legal error in awarding parenting time. Plaintiff claimed that because the trial court found that an ECE existed with both parties, it “was required, as part of its custody and change-of-domicile determinations, to consider the best-interests factors set forth in MCL 722.23 under” the clear and convincing evidentiary standard. The court concluded he misconstrued MCL 722.1006 “and its proper interaction with the trial court’s analysis in this case. The purpose of MCL 722.1006, as signaled by the phrase ‘without prejudice,’ is to ensure ‘that the initial grant of custody [under the statute] creates no impediment should either parent wish to seek a judicial determination of custodial rights.’” The court noted that he was “no way impeded from seeking a judicial determination of custodial rights at any point and, as evidenced by his motion seeking custody and parenting time, he eventually did, in fact, seek out such a determination.” He also failed “to meaningfully explain why MCL 722.1006 should be read to require the [trial] court to apply a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard when making that determination, regardless of what the child’s caregiving realities at the time may be. A trial court is required to consider a child’s relationship with each parent ‘at the time of [its] custody determination’ to determine whether an [ECE] with one or both parents ‘exists at the time [it] is rendering its decision.’” The trial court did so here. The court did “not read MCL 722.1006’s ‘without prejudice’ language to be in conflict with this legal principle or to require the trial court to effectively ignore it and the actual circumstances of AJC’s caregiving relationships at the time of its determination, as plaintiff seems to suggest.” The court held that he did not show a reversible error in the trial court’s assessment or in its “application of it to the legal frameworks governing its custody and change-of-domicile determinations.” Affirmed.