Custody; The Child Custody Act; The statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Findings on factors (b), (c), (f), (j), & (l); Award of sole legal & physical custody; Bofysil v Bofysil; Child support; Compliance with the Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF); MCL 552.605(2); Borowsky v Borowsky; Imputing income; Carlson v Carlson; Ghidotti v Barber; Attorney fees; Effect of dismissing an action & filing a new one; Hill v LF Transp, Inc; Necessary findings as to the amount of fees; MCR 2.504(D)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant-mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child. But it agreed with plaintiff-father that the trial court did not comply with the MCSF’s requirements in calculating his income for child support purposes. Finally, while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant attorney fees and costs, it failed to make necessary findings as to the amount of fees awarded. The court first rejected plaintiff’s challenges to the trial court’s findings on best-interest factors (b), (c), (f), (j), and (l). After considering the factors, the trial court determined “it was in the child’s best interests to award defendant sole legal and physical custody because the parties were unable to ‘cooperate, communicate, compromise, or co-parent effectively.’” The court held that it “did not abuse its discretion.” As it found, there was “no indication the parties will be able to communicate effectively in the near future or work together for the child’s benefit. At the time of trial, plaintiff wanted to engage in important communications with defendant in writing. [She] did not think this was an effective way to coparent, but [he] refused to engage in in-person discussions. Plaintiff was overtly dismissive of defendant in the presence of the child and he used aggressive tactics to try to get his way. Defendant did not think plaintiff was honest or moral. She testified plaintiff emotionally abused her, threatened her and her family, and harassed her during her pregnancy.” While plaintiff testified “he was willing to coparent with defendant and improve their relationship, the trial court found [his] testimony to be incredible and lacking in sincerity at times. Additionally, plaintiff’s conduct throughout the lengthy trial belied his assertion he was willing, and able, to coparent with defendant.” But as to the issue of child support, the “trial court did not ‘use three years’ information to determine [plaintiff’s] income’” as set forth in 2021 MCSF 2.02(B). Rather, it “simply found [he] earned $80,000 each year working for” a company, even though he only worked there for 16 months in 2022-23. Remand was required “for recalculation of plaintiff’s income consistent with 2021 MCSF 2.02(B).” It also agreed with plaintiff “the trial court improperly imputed income to him.” The trial court failed to “comply with the requirements of 2021 MCSF 2.01(G)(2) and” (G)(3). Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.