Motion to modify physical custody; Appropriate evidentiary standard; Established custodial environment (ECE); Sabatine v Sabatine; Findings on the statutory best-interests factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (e), (g), (h), (j), & (k); Motion for change of domicile; The MCL 777.31(4) factors

The court held that the trial court did not commit clear legal error in not applying “the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard” in ruling on plaintiff-mother’s motion to modify physical custody of the parties’ child. And the trial court’s findings on “best-interests factors (e), (g), (h), (j), and (k) were not against the great weight of the evidence[.]” Finally, the court rejected defendant-father’s claim that some of the findings on the MCL 777.31(4) “factors were against the great weight of the evidence and did not support” the decision on his motion to change domicile. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion as to physical custody, denied defendant’s motion to change the child’s domicile, and established a parenting-time schedule. As to the evidentiary standard the trial court applied in making its custody decision, the court noted that Sabatine makes it clear the touchstone of an ECE “is the relationship between the parent and child, which depends on more than simply when or how often a parent exercises his or her parenting time.” In addition, it was the child’s “standpoint as the child rather than plaintiff’s standpoint as a parent that controls the trial court’s analysis in this matter.” The court found that the “trial court’s custody award comports with these principles; although the award would work a substantial change in the preexisting parenting-time arrangement, the [trial] court concluded it would still maintain [the child’s] existing relationships with each party and not alter” the ECE. Defendant did not show any reversible error in that assessment. The court also rejected his argument “that several of the trial court’s best-interests findings were against the great weight of the evidence and did not support its decision to award the parties equal custody of” the child. It was unpersuaded that the trial court’s “decision to grant plaintiff’s motion to modify custody was ‘palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic.’” Finally, it concluded “the trial court’s findings under change-of-domicile factors (a), (c), and (e) were not against the great weight of the evidence, and” it found defendant’s claims of error in this regard had no merit. Affirmed.