Proper cause or change of circumstances; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Berger v Berger; Burden of proof; Sabatine v Sabatine

The court held that the trial court did not err in (1) finding proper cause or change of circumstances to revisit custody, (2) finding an ECE existed with both parents, or (3) applying the burdens of proof when ordering joint physical custody with a structured parenting schedule and a school placement determination. Plaintiff-mother previously had sole physical custody with joint legal custody and parenting time “as the parties agree.” Defendant-father moved to modify after plaintiff substantially reduced his time and school-related disputes arose. The trial court held a preliminary hearing, found allegations could constitute proper cause or change of circumstances, held an evidentiary hearing, and entered a written opinion. It granted joint legal and physical custody, adopting a 2-2-3 schedule, and ordering school enrollment in the closer district for the next year absent agreement. On appeal, the court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations where evidence, including text messages and school communications, tended to corroborate defendant’s account of substantial historical parenting time and involvement. The court held that the reduction of his parenting time and the school-related issues, including chronic absences and the unilateral school change over defendant’s objection, supported reevaluation because they could significantly affect the child’s well-being and stability. The court also upheld the ECE finding, reiterating that such an environment exists where, over an appreciable time, the child naturally looks to the custodian for “guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort,” and may exist with both parents. The record supported that the child looked to each parent independently during their respective parenting time, and plaintiff’s reliance on a case involving a parent who never had extended sole care obligations was unpersuasive given the evidence of regular involvement by defendant. Finally, the court held that the trial court correctly applied burdens because the analysis turns on whether the proposed change would modify the ECE, not solely on the prior custody label, and where the ECE existed with both parents, defendant’s equal-time proposal required proof by a preponderance while plaintiff’s weekend-only proposal would alter the environment and required clear and convincing evidence. Affirmed.