Child custody; Motion to change custody to allow the child to attend school out of state; Mootness; Garrett v Washington; Waiver; Jurisdiction; MCR 7.202(6); MCR 7.203(A)(1); “Final order”; MCR 7.202(6)(a)(iii) & (iv); Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D); Loutts v Loutts (After Remand); Friend of the Court (FOC); Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO)

The court held that defendant-father’s challenges to the trial court’s rulings on child custody, domicile, and schooling were moot or waived, and that it lacked jurisdiction as to child custody. However, it found the award of attorney fees to plaintiff-mother erroneous. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to change the custody of the parties’ daughter, effectively denying his request to allow her to attend school in Texas, where he resides. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred in its findings on custody and schooling and in adopting the child support calculations made by the FOC. But it agreed with him that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to plaintiff. First, to the extent “defendant obtained relief in the stipulated custody order that he had requested in his rejected motion, it is impossible for us to fashion a remedy and those issues are now moot. And to the extent that the stipulated order on custody may not have resulted in defendant obtaining all the relief that he sought in his rejected motion, we conclude that the claim for such relief was waived.” Next, the court found it lacked “jurisdiction over defendant’s appeal to the extent that it includes a claim of error regarding the UCSO. [And] given the stipulated child support order requiring neither party to pay support, the doctrines of mootness and waiver would operate to preclude appellate relief with respect to child support going forward.” Finally, however, the court held that “assuming that the trial court could sua sponte award attorney fees under MCR 3.206(D) absent specific allegations of fact by plaintiff on the subject, there simply was no evidence presented showing that plaintiff was unable to bear the expenses related to defending against defendant’s motion.” Dismissed and affirmed in part and vacated in part.