Motion to change custody; Whether proper cause or a change of circumstances (COC) existed; Corporan v. Henton; The Child Custody Act; MCL 722.27(1)(c); In re AP; Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; Dailey v. Kloenhamer; Whether the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing; Whether the court should apply the doctrine of anticipatory neglect from the termination of parental rights context; In re Gazella; Alleged inappropriate conduct on the part of the plaintiff-mother; Zantop Int’l Airlines, Inc. v. Eastern Airlines; Wilson v. Taylor; Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Sys.; Significance of the Friend of the Court’s (FOC) recommendations; Harvey v. Harvey; Child Protective Services (CPS)

The trial court’s determination that the defendant-father failed to show proper cause or a COC was not against the great weight of the evidence. Also, his argument that he was entitled to another evidentiary hearing was without merit. Further, whether the anticipatory neglect doctrine or some equivalent legal principle is or should be applicable in child-custody cases was not implicated in this case. Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it made its threshold determination that proper cause or a COC did not exist to warrant revisiting the issue of custody. The last custody order was entered on 10/8/14 by consent of the parties. Defendant sought to change custody on the basis of a third-degree child-abuse charge against the plaintiff-mother filed in the district court on 7/31/15; plaintiff’s no-contest plea to the misdemeanor offense of attempted third-degree child abuse on 8/11/15; and the district court’s imposition of probation and other conditions of diversion under MCL 771.1 on 8/11/15. Although her alleged assault on her 17-year-old daughter from a previous relationship (HM) occurred before the entry of the 10/8/14 custody order, defendant argued that the subsequent criminal proceedings were an escalation of the original circumstances, such that the trial court should have found that a COC or proper cause was shown. The evidence did not clearly preponderate against the trial court’s determination that defendant failed to establish proper cause or a COC. The altercation occurred before the entry of the last custody order. The testimony at the 7/10/15 evidentiary hearing supported the trial court’s finding that defendant knew about the altercation, and knew that there was an ongoing CPS investigation about it, before entry of the consent order. He was in court when the consent order was signed, yet proceeded with his request that the trial court enter the consent order. “Although plaintiff was criminally charged, pleaded no contest, and received a delayed sentence after the entry of the consent order, the trial court found that defendant had sufficient knowledge of the underlying events and investigation that he could have raised the issue at the [10/8/14] hearing if he did not wish to proceed with the entry of the consent custody order pending the CPS investigation.” The trial court also properly noted that she did not receive jail time or other conditions of her delayed sentence that would affect her ability to parent the parties’ child (GR) and that the district court indicated that the charge would be dismissed if she complied with that court’s terms. Affirmed.