Divorce; Parenting-time schedule; Great weight of the evidence; Corporan v. Henton; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Shade v. Wright; Proper cause or a change of circumstances; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; Baker v. Baker; Established custodial environment; Rittershaus v. Rittershaus; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Hayes v. Hayes; Lieberman v. Orr; Rains v. Rains

The court held that because “the trial court’s parenting time order amounted to a change affecting the custodial environment, it committed clear legal error in its selection and application of the law from” Shade. Instead, the trial court was required to conduct a parenting-time analysis using the proper threshold under Vodvarka. The trial court determined that the child (TFV) had an established custodial environment (ECE) with both parents. The parties had agreed to alter the original custody arrangement, such that the defendant-father’s two evening sessions were combined into one overnight and his alternating weekend visitations included Friday evening. Both felt that this was in the child’s best interests because she did not like leaving the father’s care so quickly during the evening sessions. He testified that “when the child was in his care, she would come to him for guidance and parental comfort.” He was employed, enabling him to provide basic necessities for TFV. “Moreover, the parties lived in close proximity to one another as well as TFV’s school and daycare facility, making her day-to-day schedule similar in each household.” Given this evidence, it appeared that “each parent provided a secure, stable, and permanent environment for TFV.” Since the evidence did not “clearly preponderate” in favor of an alternative conclusion, the determination that an ECE existed with both parents was not against the great weight of the evidence. “The trial court’s order modifying parenting time significantly changed the amount of time” the child spent with each parent. The “agreed-to-modification of parenting time in 2014 left plaintiff with 265 overnights and defendant with 100 overnights.” The 2017 child support order that followed the trial court’s modification of parenting time indicated the parties had an equal number of 182.5 overnights. Even “where the parties shared joint physical custody, a reduction from 265 overnights to 182.5 overnights would likely affect the custodial environment of plaintiff. That was a loss of 82.5 days or approximately 11 weeks of parenting time.” Vacated and remanded.