Custody; The Child Custody Act; Ruppel v. Lesner; Bowie v. Arder; Claim that the appellee (the brother of the now deceased plaintiff-mother) did not have standing; Effect of the fact the defendant-father initiated this case; The parental presumption owed to natural parents; MCL 722.25(1); Hunter v. Hunter; Award of children to a third-party custodian instead of a natural parent; Heltzel v. Heltzel; Whether the trial court properly conducted a best-interests hearing; Frowner v. Smith; The statutory best interest factors (MCL 722.23); Guardian ad litem (GAL)

Noting that whether appellee-Blackburn had standing was not an issue given that it was the defendant-father who initiated this case by seeking judicial intervention after the plaintiff-mother died, the court held that the trial court properly conducted a best-interests hearing and focused on the children’s best interests. Blackburn was the plaintiff’s brother. When plaintiff and defendant divorced, plaintiff was granted primary physical custody. About four months before she passed away, plaintiff and the children moved in with Blackburn. Defendant later filed an emergency ex parte motion to enforce the judgment of divorce and return the children to him. The court noted that defendant, as a natural parent, “was entitled to a parental presumption over Blackburn in this dispute, even though the children had been living with Blackburn.” However, it did “not follow that Blackburn was precluded from contesting the return of the children to defendant; the parental presumption may be rebutted” and once defendant “filed this action, a ‘child custody dispute’ arose because Blackburn had physical custody” of the children. The trial court “had the right to award Blackburn custody of the children if certain circumstances existed.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court ignored the parental presumption in conducting the best-interests hearing. “Blackburn was properly permitted to present evidence in an attempt to rebut the presumption that the children’s best interests required physical custody with defendant.” To the extent that defendant challenged the trial court’s obvious concerns as to his fitness, the court found this challenge “without merit.” The trial court “noted defendant’s obvious mental and physical deficits” (he has multiple sclerosis), as well as the fact that it was his “sister who was speaking for defendant" and pursuing the matter "rather than defendant. The GAL also indicated that defendant did not know the name of the school that his children attended, where they lived, or the day of the week that they came to visit him. Further, when asked how he would care for the children, defendant told the GAL that the children ‘were big, [and] they could take care of themselves.’” The court affirmed the trial court’s order awarding Blackburn custody.