Legal custody; Medical care; Change in circumstances (CIC); Parenting time conditions

The court reversed that portion of the trial court’s order granting plaintiff-mother sole legal custody over all medical decisions related to the child (RJF), and affirmed the trial court’s conditions for defendant-father’s exercise of parenting time. RJF “suffers from a number of serious and potentially life-threatening medical issues[.]” Defendant argued that the trial court erred by finding a CIC “warranting reopening the custody decision and by apportioning legal custody when it granted plaintiff sole legal custody over matters pertaining to RJF’s medical care.” The court determined that “the factual underpinnings of the trial court’s conclusions were against the great weight of the evidence. The trial court’s analysis of plaintiff’s request for modification of legal custody should not have proceeded to a determination of the established custodial environment and a best-interest analysis. Moreover, even if plaintiff had met her burden to establish a proper cause or a [CIC], the [trial] court committed clear legal error by apportioning legal custody and ordering that plaintiff had sole decision-making authority over issues concerning the entirety of RJF’s medical care.” Thus, the court reversed that “portion of the trial court’s order granting plaintiff sole legal custody on all issues related to RJF’s medical care.” Defendant next asserted that “the trial court erred by imposing certain conditions on his exercise of parenting time.” The court concluded that given “the unique nature of RJF’s severe medical condition, and considering that the order does not require anyone to be vaccinated and does not allow plaintiff to deny the now-vaccinated defendant parenting time, . . . the trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning its ruling for the protection of RJF under the circumstances.”