Physical custody; Best-interest factors (d), (e), (i), (j), & (l); MCL 722.23; Parenting time; Great weight of the evidence

Holding that because the referee did not err, the trial court did not err by adopting the referee’s findings and recommendation and granting plaintiff-mother primary physical custody of the parties’ children, the court affirmed. Defendant-father argued the referee made a number of factual findings that were against the great weight of the evidence and thus, her ultimate finding that a change of custody was in the children’s best interests was erroneous. As to factor (d), he argued the referee placed too much emphasis on defendant’s girlfriend moving into the home. But the record supported the referee’s finding that plaintiff’s home provided more stability to the children. As to factor (e), the court held that “despite the referee’s improper consideration of defendant’s daycare arrangement, the referee’s finding on this factor was not against the great weight of the evidence.” As to factor (i), the court held that contrary to defendant’s portrayal of the referee’s “statements, the referee seems to have considered the children’s preferences, but determined they were not dispositive to this case in light of her resolution of the other best-interest factors.” As to (j), defendant argued the referee erred in finding that it “did not favor either party because the referee ignored the fact that plaintiff had made numerous motions to change parenting time and custody and filed a complaint with” CPS against him that was unsubstantiated. Giving deference to the trial court’s credibility findings, the court could not say that the referee’s finding was against the great weight of the evidence. As to (l), defendant argued the referee erred by considering the special needs of one of the children (J), “plaintiff’s frequent use of her right of first refusal, and the COVID-19 pandemic to weigh in plaintiff’s favor.” But the finding that “plaintiff was more ‘in tune’ with” J’s needs and primarily addressed all the children’s needs was not against the great weight of the evidence. Further, the finding that she tended “to take the lead by exercising her right of first refusal and generally overseeing the children’s remote learning during COVID-19” was not against the great weight of the evidence. The referee found that it was in the children’s best interests “for plaintiff to have primary physical custody, while defendant would receive slightly less parenting time.” The court held that her finding as to the “children’s best interests was not against the great weight of the evidence, and that her ultimate resolution of the issue of custody and parenting time was not an abuse of discretion.”