Custody; Physical custody & parenting time; The statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Legal custody; MCL 722.26a(1); Bofysil v Bofysil; Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D); Myland v Myland; Loutts v Loutts

The court concluded that the trial court’s assessment of the statutory best-interest factors, except for factor (e), was not against the great weight of the evidence, and that its error as to (e) was harmless given that so many of the other factors weighed in favor of its decision to grant plaintiff-father physical custody of the parties’ children (twins). It also upheld the denial of defendant-mother’s request for attorney fees. But it held that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff sole legal custody. Thus, it vacated the ruling as to legal custody, affirmed in all other respects, and remanded for reconsideration of the issue of legal custody based on up-to-date information. It agreed with defendant that the trial court’s analysis of factor (e) “missed the mark. It is difficult to understand how the paternity of defendant’s other children has any significance to the permanence of the family unit, when” two of those children (K and M) lived exclusively with defendant and had “always been a part of the twins’ lives. It does not appear that the trial court gave any weight to the twins’ sibling relationship with” K and M, despite the relationship’s permanence “and undisputed evidence that the four siblings shared a loving bond with one another.” Noting the value it has traditionally “placed on the importance of maintaining strong sibling relationships,” the court agreed “that the trial court’s determination that factor (e) favored plaintiff was against the great weight of the evidence.” However, this error was harmless given that “the vast majority of the remaining best-interest factors supported the trial court’s decision to grant plaintiff primary physical custody. Ultimately, the trial court engaged in a reasonable and detailed analysis of each relevant factor and did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiff primary physical custody and granting defendant parenting time every other weekend and limited weekday parenting time.” But as to legal custody, the court concluded that the evidence showed “the parties were generally able to cooperate and make important decisions about the twins together.” There were many examples in the record of their ability to work together on important issues. Finally, the court found that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request for attorney fees was “within the range of reasonable outcomes.”