Divorce; Ex parte & custody orders; Barretta v Zhitkov; MCR 3.207(B)(5); Review of a referee’s recommended order after a custody hearing; MCR 3.215(F)(2); De novo hearing; MCR 3.215(F)(1); Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Sabatine v Sabatine; Best-interest findings; MCL 722.23(i); Quint v Quint

The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion by defendant-ex-husband to change custody of the parties’ children. Plaintiff-ex-wife first argued “that the trial court clearly erred by improperly addressing her objections to the ex parte order entered in [7/23], as well as the referee’s recommendations and order entered in” 11/23. The court disagreed. It held that because the ex parte order “plainly fell within MCR 3.207(B)(5), and because the order contained the notice requirements as required, plaintiff’s argument” that the trial court failed to conduct “a hearing on her objection within 21 days as required under MCR 3.207(B)(6)(a)” lacked merit. It added that she ignored “that: (1) she did not file a timely objection; (2) before she filed her late objection, the trial court had already set the matter for a hearing with the referee on the issues of custody, parenting time, and child support; and (3) the FOC subsequently filed a notice that it would also consider plaintiff’s objection to the ex parte order at the upcoming hearing. Having shown no plain error, [she] is not entitled to relief on this issue.” Plaintiff also raised “various arguments about the referee’s recommended order after the custody hearing and the trial court’s handling of [her] objection.” The court found that the fact “plaintiff chose not to present documentary evidence or other exhibits on” various issues was not the trial court’s fault. She further asserted “that the trial court impermissibly delayed the de novo hearing.” Contrary to her claim, “none of the delays to the de novo hearing can be attributed to any trial court errors.” She next asserted that it “erred by failing to find that the children had an [ECE] with her.” Again, the court disagreed. It found that absent “a showing that the evidence weighed significantly in the other direction, plaintiff has not established grounds to reverse the trial court’s decision. Because plaintiff has not met (or even addressed) her burden in her discussion of the evidence,” the court declined to further address her claim. Finally, she argued that the trial court erred in applying the best-interest factors. The court found that “the trial court had ample evidence to decide the children’s reasonable preferences; therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to reversal on” the basis the trial court failed to interview the children at, or before, the de novo hearing.