Child custody; Proper cause or a change of circumstances; Vodvarka v Vodvarka; Established custodial environment (ECE); Pierron v Pierron; The statutory best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Factors (a)-(j); Shade v Wright; Great weight of the evidence

The court held that the trial court did not err by adopting the referee’s recommendation to deny defendant-mother’s motion for change of custody and parenting time. The trial court initially granted the parties joint legal custody and granted plaintiff-father sole physical custody of the children. Defendant subsequently moved for a change of custody and modification of parenting time. The referee ultimately recommended that plaintiff continue to have primary physical custody, but that parenting time be slightly decreased for defendant during the school year in order to provide the children with more stability and consistency while attending school. The trial court adopted this recommendation. On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion because its findings concerning the children’s best interests were against the great weight of the evidence. It found that 1) the evidence supported the trial court’s findings as to factor (a); 2) the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that factor (b) favored plaintiff because he was able to offer better guidance than defendant; 3) defendant failed to show on appeal why factor (c) should have favored her over plaintiff; 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found factor (d) favored plaintiff because “he had a more stable environment that the children preferred and were used to, where, in contrast, defendant’s environment was problematic and the children were uncomfortable with it”; 5) the evidence supported the determination that factor (e) favored plaintiff because “plaintiff’s home environment was safer, more stable, and more permanent than defendant’s, . . . the children preferred plaintiff’s home, and [they] were clearly uncomfortable with” defendant’s living situation; 6) the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that factors (f)-(h) favored plaintiff over defendant; 7) defendant’s claim as to factor (i) was meritless; and 8) as to factor (j), “[t]he evidence presented showed that both parties demonstrated an inability to communicate with each other, to effectively coparent, or to encourage a good relationship between the children and the other parent.” Affirmed.