Custody; Proper cause & a change of circumstances (COC); Best-interest factors

The court concluded that the trial court’s findings regarding proper cause and COC were not against the great weight of the evidence. Also, the trial court erred as to three best-interest factors, but the court concluded that the errors were harmless. Further, because several of the best-interest factors favored plaintiff-father and none favored defendant-mother, it was not an abuse of discretion to award him sole legal custody. Defendant first argued that the trial court erred by finding that plaintiff established proper cause and a COC for purposes of reconsidering the existing custody arrangement. Defendant mischaracterized the record by claiming that the trial court found proper cause and a COC solely on the basis of one of the children’s “absences from virtual classes at the beginning of the school year. While the schooling issue was certainly a significant concern for the trial court, it was troubled by the deep-rooted acrimony and constant bickering between the parties as well. Taking both of these issues into account, the trial court’s findings” as to proper cause and COC “were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Next, defendant challenged the trial court’s finding that nearly every statutory best-interest factor favored plaintiff. Although the court held that the trial court erred as to several factors, it was not persuaded that the errors required reversal here. Finally, defendant argued that “the trial court erred by granting plaintiff sole legal custody and ordering parenting time in a manner that effectively gave plaintiff primary physical custody.” The court concluded that because “several of the best-interest factors favored plaintiff and none favored defendant, it was not an abuse of discretion to award plaintiff sole legal custody.” Affirmed.