Motion to change custody; Proper cause or change of circumstances; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Merecki v Merecki; Failure to manage a child’s ADHD medication; Best-interest factor MCL 722.23(c) (capacity & disposition to provide the child with medical care); Relevance of the child’s school-disciplinary issues; Factor MCL 722.23(h) (the child’s home, school, & community record); Relevance of the child’s expressed preference (factor MCL 722.23(i)); Plain error affecting the child’s substantial rights

The court held that the trial court plainly erred in “applying the improper burden of proof, the error affected” the substantial rights of the parties’ child (LM), and reversal was “warranted because the error seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the custody proceedings.” Thus, it reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant-mother’s motion for a change in custody and remanded. Defendant raised multiple allegations that she asserted showed proper cause or a change of circumstances to modify custody. The court noted that the “failure to manage the administration of LM’s ADHD medication is directly relevant to” best-interest factor (c) and his “school-disciplinary issues are directly relevant to” factor (h). The trial court recognized that plaintiff-father “was not managing LM’s ADHD, and that LM’s ADHD was a contributing factor to his school-disciplinary issues. [It] further acknowledged that there was evidence that LM’s school-disciplinary issues increased from 7 in 2021, 14 in 2022, 43 in 2023, and 30 in 2024 (as of the time of the [8/24] hearing). But [it] did not examine whether these factors had ‘the potential for a significant effect on the well-being of’ LM. . . . Instead, the trial court concluded that a custody modification would not change the circumstances. A trial court must find that ‘either proper cause or a change of circumstances exists before the trial court can consider’ the rest of the modification-of-custody analysis.” Thus, the court held that the “trial court plainly erred by applying the incorrect burden of proof. [It] also plainly erred by determining that LM’s expressed preference to live with defendant was irrelevant ‘until a change of circumstances, or proper cause, is found[.]’” The court noted that factor (i) considers a child’s reasonable preference. While this factor alone does not constitute a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant re-evaluating a custody arrangement, “in this case, the trial court plainly erred by determining that the factor was irrelevant and by failing to examine whether it was ‘of such magnitude to have a significant effect on the child’s well-being.’” The court also found that the “plain error affected LM’s substantial rights.” It noted that the “trial court never considered how LM’s unmanaged ADHD, school-disciplinary issues, and reasonable preference to live with defendant affected LM’s well-being.”