Child custody; Motion for a change in custody; Objections to a referee’s recommendations; Request for a de novo hearing; MCL 552.507(4)-(6); Conduct of the judicial hearing; MCR 3.215(E)(4) & (F)(2); Alleged violation of court rules on document formatting; MCR 1.109(D)(1), (2), & (6); MCR 8.119(C); Established custodial environment (ECE); Berger v Berger; Child’s best interests; Pierron v Pierron; Parenting-time bond

The court held that the trial court erred by failing to hold a live hearing at which plaintiff-mother could present evidence, subject to certain restrictions permitted by the court rules. It also held that the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing clearly preponderated against the referee’s finding that the children no longer had an ECE with plaintiff. Thus, it vacated the trial court’s order denying her objection and affirming the referee’s recommended order granting defendant-father’s motion for a change in custody of the parties’ children, and remanded for the trial court to hold a de novo hearing. It also directed the trial court to apply the best-interest factors under the clear and convincing evidence standard and vacated the $15,000 parenting-time bond imposed by the trial court. The referee found the children’s ECE was with the father and that he showed the proposed change was in their best interests. The referee also recommended awarding plaintiff supervised parenting time and requiring her to post the bond. The trial court, after reviewing the record the referee created, but without holding a de novo hearing, denied plaintiff’s objection. After initially denying her objection based on formatting violations, it also denied it and affirmed the referee’s recommended order on the basis that none of her arguments were persuasive and none of the referee’s findings of fact or conclusions of law were incorrect. The court held that the “formatting violations were not a proper basis for denying plaintiff’s objection and request for a de novo hearing.” First, defendant cited “no authority, nor have we found any, that allows a court to deny a motion or objection to a referee’s recommendation and order on the basis of formatting without some kind of notice to the party.” In addition, the court rule upon which the trial court relied “allows the clerk of the court to reject a filing on the basis of formatting errors. That did not occur in this case, and the rule does not give additional authority to the court to reject a party’s objections on the basis of formatting errors after the clerk has accepted the document for filing.” Second, because plaintiff “filed timely objections to the referee’s recommended opinion and order and asked for a judicial hearing, she was entitled to a live hearing at which she could present evidence, subject to the trial court’s reasonable restrictions. The trial court was permitted to render its decision on the basis of the referee’s record, but it was required by statute and court rule to allow the parties to appear and present evidence, subject to certain restrictions.” Finally, the referee’s ECE finding was erroneous and the bond order finding was not properly fleshed out.