Child custody; Request for a custody hearing; Involuntary dismissal; MCR 2.504(B)(2); Proper cause or a change of circumstances; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Great weight of the evidence; MCL 722.28; Whether the trial court followed its remand instructions; Judicial bias; In re Contempt of Henry; Request for disqualification; MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s request for a full custody hearing concerning the parties’ daughter. After a variety of claims and court hearings, defendant filed a motion for a custody hearing. The trial court denied his motion, finding he failed to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence proper cause or a change of circumstances that would warrant a custody hearing.” It then entered an order granting plaintiff-mother’s motion for involuntary dismissal. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in applying MCR 2.504(B)(2) to resolve his motion. It noted that when he “moved to modify the custody award that was originally made in the judgment of divorce, he in effect became the plaintiff in a new custody action for purposes of applying MCR 2.504(B)(2).” As such, the trial court did not err by finding it could assess the evidence he “presented in support of his motion and resolve that motion under MCR 2.504(B)(2).” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court failed to follow the court’s instructions on remand and was biased against him. “The record shows that the trial court fully complied with the panel’s instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether [defendant] had established by a preponderance of the evidence grounds for holding a full custody hearing.” In addition, the record showed “the trial court was courteous and professional throughout the pretrial and two days of evidentiary hearings.” It gave defendant “the opportunity to present his proofs and carefully applied the rules of evidence to his submissions.” The fact that the trial court ultimately determined he “had not met his burden of proof did not establish that the trial court held a bias against” him. Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred when it determined he did not establish proper cause or a change of circumstances warranting a full custody hearing. It declined his “invitation to evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence and make [its] own findings.” Affirmed.