Child custody; Established custodial environment (ECE); Pierron v Pierron; Great weight of the evidence; The statutory best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Ritterhaus v Ritterhaus; Factors (b), (d), (f), (g), & (h); The trial court’s findings; Legal custody; MCL 722.26a(1)(a) & (b); Bofysil v Bofysil

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff-father’s argument that the trial court’s finding that an ECE existed only with defendant was against the great weight of the evidence. The trial court “acknowledged the children’s bond and time spent with plaintiff, but it also found that the evidence had clearly demonstrated that the children had a ‘much stronger’ bond with defendant and ‘look[ed] primarily to [defendant] for love, guidance, security, and the necessities of life.’” It also found “that defendant was the children’s primary caregiver throughout their lives, including after the parties’ separation.” Further, plaintiff “spent little time with the children during the parties’ marriage and even less so following his suicide attempt, and he seemingly made few attempts to engage in additional parenting time with the children following the parties’ separation.” The trial court also “considered plaintiff’s mental health and the impact it had on his ability to parent, concluding that plaintiff’s ‘mental health and impulsive behaviors continue to have a negative impact on how he is able to effectively parent’ and have ‘negatively affected’ the children.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred in its analysis of the best-interest factors. “The trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the challenged factors were by no means lacking, and [it] left a sufficiently clear record” for the court to determine “whether the evidence clearly preponderated against” its findings. Further, the trial court’s findings as to each of the challenged factors were not against the great weight of the evidence. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by granting defendant sole legal custody of the children, noting it was clear “that the parties’ relationship had broken down to a point where they could no longer communicate, cooperate, and generally agree concerning decisions about the children. Considering that, along with the 12 best-interest[] factors, the trial court did not err by determining that sole legal custody with defendant, rather than joint legal custody, was in the children’s best interests.” Affirmed.