Child custody; Joint custody; MCL 722.26a(1); Great weight of the evidence; Brown v Brown; Best interests of the child; Willingness & ability of each parent to facilitate & encourage a close & continuing parent-child relationship between the child & the other parent or the child & the parents; MCL 722.23(j); Parenting time; Mental & physical health of the parties; MCL 722.23(g); Whether parenting time would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health; MCL 722.27a(3); Failure to enumerate specific terms for parenting time despite the parties’ request; MCL 722.27a(8)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-mother sole legal custody of the parties’ child, or in its findings as to the best-interest factors. However, it found the trial court failed to order parenting time in specific terms. The trial court granted defendant sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ child. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by awarding defendant sole legal custody of the child because it failed to adequately consider the alternative of joint legal custody. Plaintiff claimed “the trial court’s comment at the outset of the bench trial that his request for 50-50 unsupervised parenting time constituted an ‘unrealistic expectation’ demonstrated the” trial court’s animosity towards him. “However, it appears the [trial] court was simply stating that it seemed impractical to order joint physical custody of [the child] given that he was less than one year old at the time of the trial.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court’s finding that factor (j) favored both parties equally went against the great weight of the evidence. “There is no indication either party was unwilling to foster a relationship between the other parent and” the child. As such, the trial court “appropriately concluded MCL 722.23(j) favored the parties equally.” Ultimately, it did not err “in its determination that defendant’s sole legal custody of [the child] was in the child’s best interests, and [its] findings on MCL 722.23(j) were not against the great weight of the evidence.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by awarding sole physical custody of the child to defendant and giving him limited, supervised parenting time. “While plaintiff actively participated in psychiatric care and individual counselling . . . his previous outbursts were clearly of concern to the trial court, particularly when compared to defendant, who solely suffered from ‘mild depression.’” As such, the trial court’s finding “that MCL 722.23(g) favored defendant was not against the great weight of the evidence.” But because MCL 722.27a(8) mandates the trial court to order parenting time in “specific terms” if a party requests it, the trial court erred “on a major issue by awarding plaintiff parenting time in ambiguous terms.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.