Modification of child custody; Whether proper cause or a change of circumstances (COC) existed to justify revisiting the original custody order; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Whether an established custodial environment (ECE) existed; Bofysil v Bofysil; The best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Rains v Rains

The court held that the trial court did not err by modifying custody of the parties’ children and granting plaintiff-mother sole physical custody. The parties’ original custody schedule provided that defendant-father would have the kids during the school year and plaintiff would have them during the summer, but they later agreed to “flip” this arrangement. When defendant later attempted to flip the schedule back, claiming it was temporary, plaintiff refused and filed a motion to modify custody. Meanwhile, defendant took the kids out of school, flew them back to his home in California, and enrolled them in school. The trial court then found that proper cause and a COC justified review of the original custody order, that an ECE existed solely with plaintiff, and that modification of the child custody order was in the children’s best interests. As such, it awarded her sole physical custody. In a prior appeal, the court found that the trial court erred by finding proper cause or a COC to warrant revisiting the initial custody order. On remand, the trial court again found for plaintiff and granted her sole physical custody of the children. In the present appeal, the court first found that the trial court correctly interpreted the remand order and properly held further proceedings by considering updated information as directed. It next rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by finding plaintiff met her burden of establishing proper cause or a COC. The trial court found that “the children had lived in Michigan for approximately four years in an established stable and satisfactory family and community environment that provided the children permanency, education and extracurricular opportunities. The record reflects that the children had not established the same in California." As such, it “properly concluded that these concerns constituted proper cause.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by finding that the children’s ECE was solely with plaintiff. “The great weight of the evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the children did not have an” ECE with defendant but had an ECE with plaintiff. Finally, the court rejected his contention that trial court erred by improperly weighing several of the best-interest factors, noting it “articulated its reasoning and based its decision on evidence in the record, and the great weight of the evidence supported its determinations of each of the best-interest factors.” Affirmed.