Change of custody standard of review; MCL 722.28; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Best-interest factors analysis; MCL 722.23; Fletcher v Fletcher; Admissible evidence requirement in custody hearings; Brugel v Hildebrant

The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in awarding joint physical custody after properly finding a change of circumstances and weighing the statutory best-interest factors on admissible evidence. After plaintiff relocated the child from Jackson to Lake Orion and disputes intensified over school, parenting time, and plaintiff’s conflicts with school personnel, the trial court found a sufficient change in circumstances to revisit custody, evaluated each factor under MCL 722.23, and concluded defendant proved by clear and convincing evidence that modifying physical custody to a week-on week-off arrangement served the child’s best interests. On appeal, the court upheld the exclusion of plaintiff’s medical letters and records about allergy care because plaintiff failed to lay a proper foundation and the materials were hearsay, reaffirming that custody determinations must rest on admissible evidence. The court also held the trial court’s findings on contested factors were supported, including that continuity and the child’s school record favored defendant given the established stability in Jackson and plaintiff’s conduct toward school personnel, and that the ability to facilitate the other parent’s relationship favored defendant based on evidence that plaintiff obstructed school events and parenting time. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments and rejected the due-process claim premised on personal protection orders because the trial court’s reasoning focused on plaintiff’s admitted conduct described in testimony subject to cross-examination. The court also rejected ineffective-assistance claims because that doctrine has not been extended to custody cases of this type. Affirmed.