Child custody; MCL 722.28; Motion to designate a school; The best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Effect of joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a(7)(b); Pierron v. Pierron (Pierron I & II); Remand before a different judge; Bayati v. Bayati

The court held that the trial court erred by treating defendant-father’s motion to designate a school for the parties’ child as a motion for change of custody. Thus, it vacated the order and remanded for proceedings before a different judge. He filed his motion to designate the school because the parties could not agree on where the child should attend elementary school. The trial court subsequently awarded defendant sole physical custody, modified plaintiff-mother’s parenting time to alternate weekends, designated the school, terminated defendant’s child support obligation, and ordered investigation and modification of the parties’ child support obligations. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the trial court erred when it treated defendant’s motion to designate a school as a motion for change of physical custody and granted him sole physical custody instead of designating a school. “Assuming that the trial court’s designation of [the school] was in [the child’s] best interests, such a designation would most likely effectuate a de facto change of physical custody in favor of defendant because of the close proximity of” the school to his home, “as well as his parents, but was a farther distance from plaintiff. ‘Such an effective change of custody would necessitate an additional review of the statutory best-interest factors . . . to determine whether [the proponent] could prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the change of custody would be in the child[’s] best interests.’” Although the trial court “may eventually determine which parent would have sole custody of [the child], Pierron I mandates an additional review of the best-interest factors separate from the trial court’s review of those factors as it relates to the disputed issue, which here was school designation.” However, the trial court “only conducted a change of custody analysis,” and “erred by treating defendant’s motion to designate a school . . . as a motion for change of custody.” The court also agreed with plaintiff that remand before a different judge was advisable “to preserve the appearance of justice and that doing so will not entail excessive waste or duplication.”