Custody & parenting time; Due process; Notice of the nature of the proceedings; Change of custody before an evidentiary hearing; Harmless error; Lieberman v Orr; Barretta v Zhitkov; Distinguishing O’Brien v D’Annunzio; Confidential guardian ad litem (GAL) or legal guardian ad litem (L-GAL) report; MCL 722.24(3); Children’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Factors (b), (d), (h), (j), & (k); International travel prohibition; MCL 722.27a(9); Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D)(2)(b); MRPC 1.5(a); Wood v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch; Remand to different judge; Established custodial environment (ECE)

The court found that defendant-father was deprived of due process when the trial court changed both physical and legal custody of the parties’ children before conducting an evidentiary hearing, but the error was harmless. Further, the parties were entitled to a copy of a confidential GAL or L-GAL report now that the trial court had issued its ruling. Defendant’s challenges to the trial court’s finding on several of the best-interest factors failed, and the trial court did not abuse “its discretion by prohibiting him from traveling internationally with the children without a prior court order.” Finally, plaintiff-mother was entitled to attorney fees but remand was required as to the amount. As to the change in custody without an evidentiary hearing, this case was “like Barretta, in that the interim changes in parenting time amounted to a change in the children’s” ECE. But it was unlike O’Brien in that there was no indication the trial “court’s interim orders affected its final opinion and order.” Defendant could not show prejudice. The “effect of the orders was harmless in the overall best interests analysis[.]” But the court held that the trial court erred in not releasing the confidential report to the parties after the evidentiary hearing and its ruling. Next, it concluded the trial court’s findings that factors (b), (d), (h), (j), and (k) favored plaintiff were not against the great weight of the evidence. As to attorney fees, the court rejected defendant’s assertion “there was no causal connection between [his] conduct and plaintiff’s incurred attorney fees,” but it agreed that the trial court did not “engage in the required analysis before awarding the fees.” If the trial court determined “the parties created a sufficient factual record to review the issue, then [it] should have articulated the factual basis for this finding on the record. Otherwise, an evidentiary hearing was required to address defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s billing statement.” And even if a hearing was not warranted, it failed to make any “finding on the reasonable hourly rate customarily charged in the same locality for similar legal services. [It] also did not make an express finding on the reasonable number of hours expended in the case” or as to whether the Wood and MRPC 1.5(a) factors warranted a departure. The court denied defendant’s request for remand to a different judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.