Change of custody & parenting time; Consideration of a child’s established custodial environment; Threshold requirement necessary to revisit a prior custody determination; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Proper cause or a change of circumstances; Lieberman v Orr; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (c) & (j)

The court held that the trial court’s finding that defendant-mother established the threshold requirement necessary to revisit the “prior custody determination was not against the great weight of the evidence.” Further, the trial court’s findings on the statutory best-interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence. Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order after a de novo review of the referee’s recommendation and order changing custody and parenting time. Plaintiff-father’s home “became uninhabitable for several months due to a house fire. This caused [him] to move his family—which, including [the parties’ child, L], consisted of seven individuals—to a hotel, then into an RV. [L] thus went from having his own bedroom to sharing a hotel room (and later, an RV) with four children and two adults. Evidence was presented that these cramped living conditions and the lack of privacy affected [L’s] mental health, his ability to sleep, and his capacity to complete school work. This was clearly more than a normal life change, and the evidence showed that it had an effect on” L. Thus, the court concluded “the trial court’s finding that the house fire constituted a change of circumstances sufficient to revisit its prior custody order was not against the great weight of the evidence.” In addition, the trial court “found that plaintiff’s refusal to communicate the house fire and the effects that it had on [L’s] living situation to defendant also met the threshold showing necessary to revisit the [trial] court’s prior custody determination. A life event like a fire forcing a family out of their home for an extended period will obviously have an effect on a child’s wellbeing. Yet, rather than communicating with defendant about the fire and working with her to do what was best for [L], plaintiff failed to tell defendant about the fire and his family’s housing situation.” The court found that this “showed an unwillingness to include defendant in” L’s life. Thus, it determined that “the trial court’s finding that defendant had proven the threshold requirement to revisit the parties’ custody arrangement on the basis of plaintiff’s failure to communicate the house fire to [her] was not against the great weight of the evidence.” It also concluded that the trial court’s findings that best-interest factors (c) and (j) favored defendant were not against the great weight of the evidence.