Custody; Whether the same-day adoption of the Friend of the Court’s (FOC) recommendation denied the parties any meaningful opportunity to object; MCR 3.210(C)(6); Whether an error required remand; MCR 2.613(A)

Holding that the trial court’s same-day adoption of the FOC’s recommendation denied the parties any meaningful opportunity to object, and that refusal to take action was inconsistent with substantial justice, the court vacated the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff-father sole legal and physical custody of the children and parenting time, and remanded. Defendant-mother argued that remand was required because the trial court improperly entered the FOC’s recommendation immediately after its submission to the trial court, and as a result, she was not given a meaningful opportunity to object. The court agreed. “MCR 3.210(C)(6), provides that ‘[i]f a report has been submitted by the friend of the court, the court must give the parties an opportunity to review the report and to file objections before a [custody] decision is entered.’” The court held that the “trial court’s same-day adoption of the FOC’s recommendation denied the parties any meaningful opportunity to object before the trial court entered the order” as to custody and parenting time. In doing so, it failed to comply with the court rules. “An error by the trial court in a ruling or order is not a ground for granting a new hearing or disturbing an order unless refusal to take action appears to be inconsistent with substantial justice.” The court held that this case presented such circumstances.