Joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a(1) & (7)(b); Modification; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Proper cause or a change of circumstances; Dailey v Kloenhamer; The statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (b), (c), & (l); Grant of the exclusive right to one parent to make medical appointments & medical decisions for the parties’ child; Parenting time; Rains v Rains

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting plaintiff-mother “the exclusive right to make medical appointments and medical decisions for the parties’” child (W) but maintaining their joint legal custody and defendant-father’s parenting time. As to the trial court’s legal custody ruling, plaintiff challenged its findings on best-interest factors (b), (c), and (l). She asserted as to (b) that the trial court failed to consider “the fact that defendant blames plaintiff for his own failure to be involved” in W’s schooling. But “the person on whom defendant places blame for his actions is irrelevant when considering his capacity to assist [W] with his schoolwork. The trial court considered defendant’s lesser involvement by concluding this factor weighed slightly in favor of plaintiff, in light of the parties’ equivalence on the other elements of this factor, such as love, affection, and guidance.” As to (c), the trial court found this factor weighed plaintiff’s favor due to her “diligent pursuit of [W’s] medical treatments and defendant’s unreasonable demands” about medical appointments. The trial court further “noted it appeared defendant’s actions, at least concerning recording [W’s] appointments, were designed to ‘intimidate, control, and harass’ plaintiff. The trial court considered defendant’s problematic behavior when evaluating this factor, through its analysis under” factor (l), which it also found weighed in plaintiff’s favor. It “noted various factors were neutral and determined the evidence supported a finding that [W] received love, affection, and guidance from defendant. The record does not indicate [W] does not love defendant or enjoy his time with” him. In addition, the trial court was able to consider W’s preferences. While it appeared “defendant was being difficult, sometimes to the detriment of [W], the carve-outs the trial court made in its order of granting plaintiff sole decision-making authority for medical appointments and treatment, and permitting each parent to choose extracurricular activities for [W] when [W] is in their care, specifically addressed these problems without disrupting defendant’s relationship with” W. As to parenting time, the trial court could not modify it based solely on “plaintiff’s unsupported assertion that the change would permit [W] to spend more time with defendant.”