Divorce; Motion for change of domicile for the parties’ children to Virginia; The D’Onofrio factors; D’Onofrio v D’Onofrio (NJ Super); MCL 722.31(4)(a)-(e); Children’s best interests

Concluding that the trial court’s findings as to “the D’Onofrio factors were not against the great weight of the evidence[,]” the court affirmed the order denying defendant-mother’s motion for change of domicile for the parties’ children. Also, it held that the trial court’s findings as to their “best interests were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Defendant contended “the trial court erred by finding she did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the threshold D’Onofrio factors warranted a change of domicile” (to Virginia). As for the first factor, MCL 722.31(4)(a), the court held that even “if this factor constituted a close call, the facts do not clearly preponderate in the opposite direction.” As for the second factor, MCL 722.31(4)(b), the “record did not establish the relocation was ‘inspired’ by defendant’s desire to defeat or frustrate plaintiff’s [ex-husband] parenting time schedule. The trial court’s finding addressing the relocation was not against the great weight of the evidence.” As to the third factor, MCL 722.31(4)(c), the court found that the “trial court’s finding, that the parental relationship for the children and plaintiff could not be preserved, was not against the great weight of the evidence.” Concerning the fourth “factor, MCL 722.31(4)(d), the trial court found neither parent was ‘motivated by any interest in increasing or reducing child support obligations.’” There was “no evidence establishing plaintiff, the parent opposing the relocation, was motivated by any desire to secure a financial advantage. The trial court properly found this factor did not favor either party.” As to the fifth factor, MCL 722.31(4)(e), the court concluded that the trial court’s finding as to domestic violence “was not against the great weight of the evidence.”