Sole legal custody; Best-interest factors (c) (capacity to provide for material needs), (j) (willingness to encourage close relationship), & (k) (domestic violence); Joint custody

The court concluded that the trial court’s factual findings as to best-interest factors “(c), (j), and (k), were not against the great weight of evidence, and accordingly, the [trial] court did not abuse its discretion when granting sole legal custody to” plaintiff-mother. Likewise, it “did not fail to consider joint custody, and the trial court’s failure to consider alternatives to joint custody did not constitute plain error.” As to best-interest factor (c), “the trial court found that this factor favored plaintiff on the basis that plaintiff had been providing for the children’s food, clothing, and housing.” In contrast, defendant-father’s “child support payments had been ‘rare and inconsistent,’ such that defendant had an arrearage of over $10,000.” The record amply supported this determination. “Plaintiff earned a master’s degree, was employed part-time, and was looking for full-time work in her field. In the meantime, plaintiff supplemented her income with student loans, public assistance, and some financial support from her family.” Also, the trial court determined that factor (j) slightly favored her too. “Plaintiff testified that she never excluded defendant from decision-making, which the trial court found credible.” And she “tried to encourage the children to have a strong relationship with defendant[.]” The court noted that defendant, “in contrast, would withdraw from plaintiff and the children for days at a time when he was angry or frustrated. And [he] sometimes would fail to pick up the children after the parties had argued. [He] also used the parenting communication platform AppClose to ask to take plaintiff out.” Finally, “the trial court found that plaintiff was slightly favored under” factor (k). The record supported these findings. She “testified that if defendant was angry with her, particularly regarding the parties’ difference in parenting styles or the child support litigation, defendant would stay away from the children for days at a time. Similarly, after the parties argued, defendant would arrive late to pick up the children or fail to come, causing plaintiff to be late for work or miss work altogether. And, as noted, the AppClose messages support that defendant used the platform to communicate about the parties’ relationship.” Affirmed.