Divorce; Child custody; Proper cause or a change of circumstances; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Best-interest factors; MCL 722.23(g), (h), & (j); Failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing; Sanctions; MCR 1.109(E)(5)(c), (E)(6), & (E)(7); Attorney fees; Smith v Khouri; Reasonableness

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-mother’s motion seeking joint legal custody of the parties’ children, or by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. But it found that while the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering her to pay plaintiff-father attorney fees, remand was appropriate for the trial court to make necessary findings of fact as to the amount. Plaintiff petitioned for divorce and for sole custody of the children, alleging defendant was unable to effectively parent them due to her alcoholism. Defendant, who entered inpatient treatment, failed to file an answer and a default judgment was entered, awarding plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the children. Defendant’s parenting time was suspended. After her release from inpatient treatment, she struggled with maintaining her sobriety, but began to show consistent improvement and was ultimately permitted to have unsupervised parenting time. She eventually moved for a change of custody, but the motion was denied because she failed to establish proper cause or a change of circumstances. She later moved for joint legal custody. The trial court denied her motion and granted plaintiff $1,250 in attorney fees. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court improperly denied her motion for joint legal custody. “Defendant failed to establish proper cause or a change of circumstances, and any error on the part of the trial court was harmless.” And despite her sobriety, the record supported “that her relationship with the children remains strained. Given the parties’ contentious relationship, revisiting the custody order at this time would likely have a significant negative effect on the children’s well-being.” The court also rejected her claim that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether proper cause or a change of circumstances existed. It agreed “with the trial court that defendant’s disagreement with plaintiff’s decisions alone does not support proper cause or change of circumstances.” Finally, although the court disagreed with plaintiff’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay plaintiff attorney fees, it found it was proper to remand for the trial court to make the necessary findings of fact under the Khouri framework. “Because the trial court failed to make findings of fact on the issue of attorney fees,” the court vacated the part of the order granting attorney fees and remanded to allow the trial court to make the necessary factual findings. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.