Divorce; Motion to change children’s domicile; MCL 722.31(4); Rains v Rains; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Modification; Sabatine v Sabatine; Statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (a)-(d) & (f)-(k); MCR 3.210(C)(5); Judicial bias/request for reassignment; Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D); Lack of an evidentiary hearing; Reasonableness

In this divorce case, the court held that plaintiff-mother established by a preponderance of the evidence that the MCL 722.31(4) factors supported changing the domicile of the parties’ children to Canada. Further, the trial court did not err in finding that the children had an ECE with plaintiff, and that the best-interest factors supported her request to move them to Canada. The court rejected defendant-father’s judicial bias claim, and upheld the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiff. Reviewing the trial court’s findings on the MCL 722.31(4) factors, the court found defendant failed to show any error. Next, it rejected his argument that the trial court’s finding of an ECE with plaintiff was against the great weight of the evidence. “The evidence showed that the children looked to [her] for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort. Modifying how defendant spent his parenting time with the children because of the move did not involve significant changes to” their ECE. In light of that, she only had “to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the move was in the children’s best interests.” After reviewing the trial court’s findings on the challenged best-interest factors, the court held that she did so. Defendant failed to show that the trial court wrongly decided that factors (a), (b), (d), (f), and (k) favored plaintiff, and that factors (c) and (g) were even/neutral. It also did not err in finding that factor (i) did not apply where even the older child (age 6) was unable to express a reasonable preference. As to the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff $15,421.08 in attorney fees, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the evidence did not support the “ruling that [she] lacked the ability to pay her fees.” It also found that there was no reason to apply judicial estoppel to bar her motion, and no error in “the trial court’s decision that defendant had the ability to pay” them. Further, as he “did not properly challenge the reasonableness of the amount of fees charged by plaintiff’s attorney or the billable hours, or specifically request an evidentiary hearing, there was no need for the” trial court to conduct one. Finally, he failed to show that it erred in determining the requested fees were reasonable. Affirmed.