Custody; The Child Custody Act (CCA); Modifying prior custody orders; The best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Proper cause or a change of circumstances; Allegations of parenting time violations

The court concluded “that the trial court erred by modifying the custody order and by failing to consider the best-interest factors” in MCL 722.23 “before modifying the prior custody orders.” Because it found that the trial court misapplied the law, the court vacated the trial court’s order that denied plaintiff-mother’s motion to show cause defendant-father for violating the trial “court’s parenting-time order and awarded defendant sole physical and legal custody of” their child, and remanded. The court recognized the trial “court’s desire to address the outstanding custody questions arising from plaintiff’s 2022 motion to modify custody, the temporary language of [its] 2018 and 2022 orders, and the referee’s 2023 recommendation and order.” However, the record was “not clear that the parties agreed to have the [trial] court address those custody questions. Instead, the only issue properly noticed for hearing before [it] was plaintiff’s motion to show cause, asking the [trial] court to address defendant’s alleged parenting-time order violations.” Thus, the trial “court legally erred in failing to address plaintiff’s motion to show cause under the legal standards applicable to contempt proceedings.” The court added that the trial “court compounded its legal error by imposing a new custody order without complying with the” CCA. It instructed the trial court on remand “to decide plaintiff’s motion to show cause based on the evidence presented during the [3/22/24] hearing.”