Child custody; Motion to change domicile; MCL 722.31(4); Rains v Rains; Established custodial environment (ECE); The best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Factors (d), (e), & (j); Ireland v Smith; Distinguishing Bylinski v Bylinski & Kaiser v Kaiser; Principle that a motion for directed verdict may be treated as a motion for involuntary dismissal under MCR 2.504(B)(2); Sands Appliance Servs, Inc v Wilson

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-mother’s motion to change the domicile of the parties’ children. Plaintiff sought to change their domicile from Clarkston to Traverse City on the basis that her new fiancé lived and worked in Traverse City. Defendant-father unsuccessfully opposed the motion. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred in its findings on some of the best-interest factors, and in its determination that plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed move was in the children’s best interests. First, it found he “failed to establish that any of the trial court’s findings on the best-interest factors” were against the great weight of the evidence. His argument focused “almost exclusively on factor (j), and he has failed to present a successful challenge to the trial court’s determination that plaintiff was favored on that factor. Although the trial court indicated that the best-interest factors other than factor (j) (setting aside factor (i) for the moment) were equal, the trial court has discretion to determine how much weight to accord to the best-interest factors,” and it “reasonably found factor (j) to merit considerable weight in these circumstances.” Also, his argument as to “the trial court’s best-interests determination ignore[d] the fact that the trial court considered the reasonable preferences of the children under factor (i), which could also have played a role in the trial court’s overall best-interests determination.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court’s findings as to the change-of-domicile factors were against the great weight of the evidence. “In particular, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding on factor (a) that the change of domicile had the capacity to improve the quality of life for the children and plaintiff, and the evidence supported the trial court’s finding on factor (c) that it was possible to modify the parenting-time schedule in a manner that preserved and fostered each party’s parental relationship with the children.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict or involuntary dismissal, finding he failed to show that his testimony at the evidentiary “hearing was so critical that an involuntary dismissal was required in the absence of that testimony.” Affirmed.