Petition to modify a child’s guardianship to require that petitioner-parent be allowed video contact with the child; Whether the probate court had to review the best-interest factors in MCL 700.5101(a); Parenting time; MCL 700.5204(5)

The court held that the probate court properly considered, and did not abuse its discretion in denying, the petition to modify respondents-grandparents’ guardianship of the child (LMW) to require them to allow petitioner-father video conference contact with her. She has lived with respondents exclusively since 2013. Petitioner was convicted in 2014 “of possession and distribution of child pornography” and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 20 years’ supervised release. Respondents were granted full guardianship of LMW, with parenting time at their discretion “and in accordance with existing court orders.” As to the petition at issue, the probate court ruled that petitioner could have contact with LWM “by written letters under respondents’ supervision, but declined to require LMW to participate in video conferencing; [it] explained that respondents have discretion to permit LMW to video conference with [him] in the future if LMW changes her mind and wants” such contact. He contended it was required to review the best-interest factors in MCL 700.5101(a). But given that he sought parenting time, “the probate court was not required by MCL 700.5204(5) to specifically consider or make findings regarding the statutory best-interests factors when ruling on” his petition. He further asserted it erred in only considering “LMW’s preferences when determining the mode of communication permitted between” them. But the court disagreed that the probate court did so, noting it also considered that he “was convicted of child pornography charges, was still on probation related to those charges, and had violated his probation after he was released from prison. [It] also specifically considered that, due to the digital format of the proposed contact, [he] would be able to take screenshots of LMW during the chats. [It] also expressed concern over [his] recent Facebook posts that depicted sexually suggestive content.” The court agreed “with the probate court that video contact with LMW may be contrary to her welfare considering petitioner’s child pornography conviction, his recent Facebook posts, and the potential to use LMW’s image. Taken together with LMW’s preference that” their contact stay limited to letters, the court found the probate court did not clearly err in determining “that video contact would be contrary to LMW’s welfare.” Affirmed.