Child custody; Motion for change of domicile; MCL 722.31(4); Rains v. Rains; Rittershaus v. Rittershaus; The statutory best interest factors; MCL 722.23; Whether a decision is contrary to public policy; Terrien v. Zwit

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-mother’s motion to change domicile. The parties, who were never married, had twin girls. When they separated, the trial court granted them joint legal custody of the children, required the plaintiff-father to receive reasonable and liberal parenting time, and ordered plaintiff to pay child support. It also ordered plaintiff to supervise any contact between the children and his father, and ordered that the paternal aunt was not permitted to physically punish the children. Defendant later moved to change her and the children’s domicile because she was marrying another man and could provide the children with a better life. The trial court disagreed and denied her motion. On appeal, the court found that defendant “failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a change of domicile was warranted under the factors in MCL 722.31(4) because the support she received from” her new husband was not dependent on moving, “the benefit of the schools and extracurricular activities available to the children . . . would be offset by plaintiff’s decreased involvement in their day-to-day lives, plaintiff exercised his parenting time whenever he could, and there was no evidence that the children were exposed to domestic violence or that plaintiff’s opposition to the move resulted from improper financial motives.” As such, “the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to change the children’s” domicile. The court also found that because the “trial court’s decision was appropriate under MCL 722.31” and case law, defendant did not show “that the decision was contrary to public policy, nor has she established any plain error arising from the trial court’s actions.” Affirmed.