Child custody dispute; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27; Sabatine v Sabatine; Best-interest factors; MCL 722.23; Kuebler v Kuebler; Change of domicile; MCL 722.31; Rains v Rains; Parenting time modification; Shade v Wright

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant-mother’s request to change custody and domicile, in finding that one child had an ECE with both parents, or in modestly adjusting plaintiff-father’s parenting time. The parties never married but shared joint legal and physical custody under a 2017 order providing equal parenting time. In 2023, defendant sought to relocate the children to Ohio with her new fiancé and requested sole physical custody, while plaintiff sought to enforce parenting time after conflicts with his older child, MDL. Following hearings, the trial court found that MDL had an ECE with defendant, but that the younger child, BSL, maintained one with both parents. Thus, defendant bore the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that custody and domicile changes were in the children’s best interests. Reviewing the statutory factors under MCL 722.23, the court concluded defendant failed to meet that burden, particularly as to BSL, where many factors either favored plaintiff or were equal. While defendant argued that relocation to Ohio would improve her circumstances, the trial court found the alleged benefits to the children “speculative” and noted the disruption to their ECE and relationship with plaintiff. As to change of domicile, the court applied MCL 722.31 and Rains and determined that defendant did not show the move would improve the children’s quality of life or preserve their relationship with plaintiff, particularly given his ongoing involvement in BSL’s daily care and activities and his efforts to rebuild his bond with MDL. The trial court also modestly increased plaintiff’s parenting time with MDL by three hours every other week, outside the presence of his girlfriend, reasoning that “more frequent contact… will assist in mending their bond.” It denied contempt, makeup parenting time, and a return to equal weeks with MDL, instead preserving the cautious temporary schedule and ordering continued counseling. On appeal, the panel deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations, rejected defendant’s challenges to the ECE and best-interest findings, and held that the parenting-time adjustment did not alter MDL’s ECE. Affirmed.