Divorce; Custody; The Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Phillips v. Jordan; Berger v. Berger; MCL 722.28; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Burden of proving by clear & convincing evidence that a change to sole custody served the children’s best interests; Foskett v. Foskett; The statutory best interest factors; MCL 722.23; Kessler v. Kessler; Factors (j) & (l); Credibility; Wright v. Wright; Shann v. Shann; Beason v. Beason; Factor (i); Fletcher v. Fletcher; Whether a trial court’s findings on one or two factors can outweigh findings as to the rest of the factors; Heid v. AAASulewski; McCain v. McCain; Child support & spousal support awards; Borowsky v. Borowsky; Stallworth v. Stallworth; Effect of the defendant’s debt; Potential motion for modification of the child support order; MCL 552.17(1); Clarke v. Clarke; Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF)

Concluding that the trial court’s findings as to factors (j) and (l) were not against the great weight of the evidence, and that its ruling on the ultimate custody decision was not an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed the order granting the plaintiff-mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children. The trial court granted her request for sole custody based on the parties’ lengthy history of animosity and conflict, which led to an inability to effectively communicate, and its “determination that plaintiff was more likely to attempt to foster a relationship between the children and the other parent.” It found that they were equal as to statutory best interest factors (a) through (h), and, based on an in camera interview with the children, considered their preference pursuant to factor (i). The defendant-father contended the trial court’s finding that factor (j) favored plaintiff was against the great weight of the evidence. The court disagreed, noting that plaintiff “testified to ongoing attempts to contact defendant” about the children, which he “rebuffed by refusing to respond or blocking her efforts to contact him through telephone calls and text messages.” He did not dispute that, while the parties were separated and shared joint custody, “he retained the children for five consecutive weeks.” There was testimony suggesting that he did not initially provide her with information as to his living arrangements and actively altered their school emergency contact cards. While the trial court did not specifically state that factor (l) favored either party, it correctly used this factor “to consider how these difficulties would impact” the children’s best interests. The court concluded that the trial court “expressed legitimate concerns” about the parties’ inability to effectively communicate daily on even minor issues, let alone discuss and resolve major ones that might arise. In light of the trial court’s adherence to the MCSF and his failure to provide full documentation, the court noted that defendant’s other claims on appeal would be more properly addressed through a motion for modification of child support, which would permit him to present updated and current documentation as to his claims of reduced income.