Custody; Sufficiency of the findings; MCL 722.28; Burden of proof; Child’s best interests; Errors involving evidence; Unpreserved errors; Expansion of the record

The court held that defendant-mother had not established that the trial court “made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order after remand, granting joint physical custody, awarding plaintiff-father sole legal custody of child, WQ, and changing the parties’ parenting time. Defendant first asserted “that the trial court erred by changing legal custody without sufficient findings under MCL 722.23.” The court found that “review of the trial court’s opinion and order shows that the trial court made ‘brief, definite, and pertinent findings’ about the contested factors, MCR 2.517(A)(2), and that the court’s findings were stated in enough detail for this Court to determine whether the evidence clearly preponderated against the trial court’s findings[.]” Although the trial court did not repeat its findings from the 9/6/23 evidentiary hearing, it “stated multiple times that it was incorporating those findings into its new best-interest analysis. In addition, the trial court expressly addressed updated information provided by the parties, at length. Under each of the best-interest factors that the [trial] court found to favor plaintiff, the trial court specified the updated facts that supported its conclusion.” Defendant’s argument focused “less on whether the trial court’s findings were sufficient than on whether the trial court properly weighed the evidence.” In particular, defendant contended “that the trial court failed to adequately assess MCL 722.23(h) and MCL 722.23(j).” From the court’s review of the record, it concluded “that the trial court’s determination that MCL 722.23(h) favored both parents was not against the great weight of the evidence. The parents’ testimonies established that they were involved in the child’s schooling, followed his progress, kept up with his school events, and attended parent-teacher conferences and other such meetings. Regarding MCL 722.23(j), this Court held in its previous decision that the trial court’s conclusion that this factor favored plaintiff was not against the great weight of the evidence. The evidence on remand showed that defendant video recorded parenting exchanges, reported plaintiff to CPS twice after the trial court’s [9/23] custody order, took issue with practically every decision that plaintiff made about WQ’s healthcare and hygiene, and generally demonstrated antagonistic behavior towards plaintiff. The trial court believed that defendant’s actions evinced a distrust of plaintiff and suggested that she may despise him and his decisions pertaining to the minor.” On this record, she had “not shown that the trial court’s conclusion with respect to MCL 722.23(j) was against the great weight of the evidence.” Also, the court held that the “evidence before the trial court was clear and convincing that the change in parenting time was in the child’s best interests.”