Custody & parenting time; Liberman v. Orr; Johnson v. Johnson; Michigan’s Child Custody Act; Motion to change custody; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Proper cause of a change in circumstances (CIC); Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer; Corporan v. Henton; Personal protection order (PPO)

The court held that because the facts alleged in defendant-father’s “motion for modification of custody and parenting time failed to establish the threshold requirement of proper cause or a material [CIC] to warrant a reexamination of the previous custody order,” the trial court properly denied his motion for lack of a factual basis to revisit the custody issue. It also properly declined to conduct “an evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of proper cause or [CIC] because such a hearing is generally not required.” Thus, the court affirmed the custody order because the trial court did not err or make findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence. The father argued, among other things, that “the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify custody and parenting time without an evidentiary hearing and without making any factual findings regarding the existence of proper cause or a [CIC], despite the allegations” in his motion supporting such findings. He claimed that the following events supported a proper cause or a CIC determination: (1) plaintiff-mother continuously obstructed his “ability to exercise reasonable parenting time” and (2) she had a dysfunctional relationship with another man. He asserted that plaintiff committed misconduct as to custody arrangements by denying him reasonable parenting time and limiting his contact with the “child to one hour of supervised visitation each week. However, ‘minor allegations of contempt or visitation complaints’ are insufficient to establish proper cause" or a material CIC warranting reevaluation of a child custody order. Further, even if the trial court took his allegations that plaintiff’s “relationship with another man was dysfunctional or that mother had a history of anxiety and panic attacks as true, these bald assertions alone without any explanation regarding how those facts had ‘or could have a significant effect on the child’s life’ were insufficient to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that proper cause for a reevaluation of custody existed.” Similarly, he did not “explain how his ability to exercise parenting time was inhibited” by a PPO. In fact, he admitted that the mother facilitated visits between him and the child at the “father’s house before the default judgment was entered and continued to do so on a regular basis for a couple months before making arrangements for supervised parenting visits as required by the default judgment.” Thus, his allegations as to the PPO also failed to establish proper cause or a material CIC.