Motion to change custody; Proposed move modifying the “established custodial environment” (ECE); MCL 722.27(1); Pierron v. Pierron; The statutory best interest factors (MCL 722.23); McIntosh v. McIntosh; Factors (d), (e), & (l); Ireland v. Smith

The court held that the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff-mother’s proposed move would have modified the child’s ECE was not against the great weight of the evidence. Further, the trial court’s findings on MCL 722.23(d), (e), and (l) were not against the great weight of the evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to change custody of the parties’ child. It noted that the defendant-father “regularly exercised his parenting time,” and described himself as a “hands-on” parent. It was clear that “he took an active interest” in the child’s upbringing. He coached his t-ball team and was involved in his schooling. Defendant saw him “twice during the week, including an overnight visit, and every other weekend. This meant that defendant usually would not go more than four days without” seeing him. “If custody were changed, weekday visits, overnight or otherwise, would have been impractical” for a 5-year-old child given the 70-mile distance between the city where the parties currently lived and the township to which plaintiff sought to move. The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that “undue emphasis was given to” defendant’s and the child’s involvement in t-ball, concluding that defendant was actively involved in all aspects of the child’s life, and “plaintiff’s proposed move would have had a significant impact on that involvement.” Further, the trial court’s findings that the parties were equal on best interest factors (d) and (e) were not against the great weight of the evidence. “Contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, there is nothing inherent in living with parents/grandparents that makes the home environment unstable. In any event, there is no indication in the record that either party’s parents had threatened or intended to evict them. The trial court apparently found that it was desirable to maintain the current environment.” It also “correctly found that it was speculative whether the move would benefit” the child due to increased earnings by plaintiff. The fact that she “might obtain independent housing at some point in the future” did not mean that he “will have a more stable family environment with her rather than defendant.” As to factor (l), the trial court found no other factors were relevant. Plaintiff did not present any evidence corroborating her assertion that the township schools were better than the schools in which the child was currently enrolled.