Motion to change children’s domicile; MCL 722.31(4); Rains v Rains; Statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23)

Concluding the trial court did not err in “finding that the balance of the MCL 722.23 best-interest factors favored” plaintiff-mother and her proposed change of domicile, the court affirmed the order granting her motion to change the children’s domicile. As there was no argument raised as to the trial court’s findings that plaintiff satisfied the first three steps of the Rains process, the court addressed the fourth step, whether the MCL 722.23 factors supported that the change in domicile would be in the children’s best interests. It concluded that the trial court’s findings on those “factors were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Factor (a) was found to favor plaintiff because defendant-father, “on at least a few occasions, appeared to unnecessarily delay seeking help for the children in school or health matters because doing so might give him the upper hand in his relationship with plaintiff. This undermined his parenting abilities. Factor (b) also favored plaintiff because there was testimony that defendant had consumed alcohol on more than one recent occasion despite his history of multiple legal issues that were alcohol-related.” The trial court found this “may have an adverse effect on his future parenting abilities.” It determined that “factor (g) favored plaintiff because defendant seemingly did not accept [her] relationship with her new husband, which may suggest a mental-health issue that requires counseling. On the other hand, factor (h) slightly favored defendant because” the county where the parties had been living prior to plaintiff’s move to Wisconsin had been the children’s “‘community of record[.]’” Factor (j) favored plaintiff because “the record did not indicate that defendant was willing to co-parent with [her]. Rather, he engaged in certain hostile and difficult behaviors that made [her] attempt to parent their children unnecessarily difficult. Factor (k) slightly favored plaintiff because there was some evidence of domestic violence by defendant years ago[.]” Factors (c), (d), (e), and (f) favored neither party, the trial court did not expressly state whether factor (l) favored either party, the court treated factor (i) as neutral. It found that all the trial court’s findings “were supported by the record” and that “its overall decision to grant plaintiff’s motion to change domicile” was not an abuse of discretion.