Child custody; Joint legal custody; Kuebler v Kuebler; Findings on the statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (b), (c), (h), (j), (k), & (l)

Holding that the trial court did not err in awarding the parties joint legal custody and that its findings on the best-interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed. It previously remanded the case “for a determination of proper cause or change in circumstances and a renewed analysis of the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23.” On remand, after an evidentiary hearing “the trial court awarded plaintiff-father and defendant-mother joint legal and physical custody and equal parenting time.” The mother appealed. The court noted that “a 2019 consent order awarded the parties joint legal custody.” Asserting the trial court erred in declining to modify this arrangement, the mother cited “the parties’ consensus that they could not effectively coparent.” The court disagreed. While the record showed “animosity and poor communication, personal discord is not alone a barrier to joint legal custody.” The court noted there was “no evidence of disputes over school enrollment, medical treatment, dietary requirements, or religious upbringing. And the sole legal-custody dispute—the therapist selection—was successfully resolved with court involvement.” Thus, the record did not support her “contention that the parties cannot coparent. Rather, it shows that, despite their hostility, they generally managed to cooperate on important issues affecting the children’s welfare.” She also challenged the trial court’s findings on best-interest factors (b), (c), (h), (j), (k), and (l). The court concluded that the findings on (b) and (c) were supported by both parties’ testimony. The record also supported the trial court’s finding that (h) favored them equally. And the court likewise determined that its findings on (j), (k), and (l) were not against the great weight of the evidence. The “trial court did not penalize mother for taking reasonable actions taken to protect the children from domestic violence by father. Rather, it found her actions unreasonable because there was no evidence that father abused the children.”