Child custody; Sole legal & physical custody; Best-interest factors under MCL 722.23; Established custodial environment (ECE)

The court concluded that the “trial court’s factual findings were not against the great weight of evidence,” and thus, it “did not abuse its discretion when granting sole legal and physical custody” of LAB to defendant-father. Respondent-mother contended “that the trial court clearly erred in failing to specifically place all of the factors on the record and explicitly state which factor favored each parent. While the trial court did not individually refer to each best-interest factor on the record, [it] did make numerous findings of fact and referred to the factors.” The court noted that when “analyzing the best-interest factors, the court’s findings and conclusions ‘need not include consideration of every piece of evidence,’ but the record ‘must be sufficient for this Court to determine whether the evidence clearly preponderates against the trial court’s findings.’” It held that the record here was “sufficient to show that a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s findings.” As to factors (a)-(c), the DHHS testified to the concerns regarding the lack of bond between the mother and LAB, and the trial court found her limited parenting time with LAB was “unsuccessful.” It further found her “aggressive behavior was negatively impacting LAB because ‘the only time those type of aggressive behaviors [in LAB] arise is when [LAB] has been in the company of”” the mother. The trial court found no issue as to the father’s “ability to care for LAB, whereas” the mother did not have the ability to provide for and care for LAB. The trial court found she “had not completed any parenting classes and did not fulfill LAB’s educational needs by participating in the special services he requires.” As to factors (d) and (e), it found an ECE had existed with the father since 5/23, “who had ‘a proper home for [LAB] and [LAB] does enjoy residing with [the father] and all of his needs are being met in the home of [the father].’” The trial court acknowledged the mother “previously pleaded no contest to improper supervision of LAB, and further found [the mother’s] living situation was ‘very unstable in that [DHHS] has no knowledge as to where specifically she’s living at this time.’” As to factor (f), it “found [the mother’s] ‘moral fitness is at issue due to her substance abuse and domestic violence and the other issues that she has.’” It found there was “no issue relative to [the father]’s moral fitness nor his ability to care for the child.” As to factor (g) the trial court acknowledged the mother “failed to complete any of her court-ordered services, which included both individual counseling and substance abuse counseling.” As to factors (h) and (i), the “record indicated LAB was excelling under [the father’s] care. The trial court found LAB enjoyed living with [the father], whereas LAB was aggressive when attending parenting time with [the mother]. It did not indicate whether LAB expressed a preference.” As to factor (j), the record indicated the father “helped to facilitate parenting time with [the mother]. The trial court found parenting time was unsuccessful.” Finally, as to factor (k), it found it was an issue she “struggled with, reiterating she pleaded no contest to allegations of domestic violence.” Affirmed.