Child custody; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); The statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Failure to actually enter or serve a default; MCR 3.210(B)(2); MCR 2.603(A); Required factual findings & conclusions of law

Holding that the trial court erred in not properly evaluating the child’s (JS) ECE and best interests before making its custody and parenting-time decisions, the court vacated the order granting plaintiff-father joint custody and establishing a parenting-time schedule. The trial court entered the order “without making any of the requisite factual and legal determinations” about JS’s ECE and best interests, apparently based on its conclusion that defendant-mother “defaulted after failing to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. This amounted to clear legal error warranting relief.” The record showed “that—among other procedural deficiencies—no default was ever entered against or served on defendant.” The court added that, even if one “had been properly entered and served, we fail to see how that fact alone would have relieved the trial court of its obligation to make and set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding custody and parenting time before issuing its order. Indeed, it is well established that the trial court has a duty to serve a child’s best interests when fashioning an award of custody and parenting time and cannot modify custody without first doing so.” Before it could issue its custody and parenting time order, it “was required to determine: (1) if an [ECE] existed with one or both parties . . . ; (2) whether the requested custody and parenting-time arrangement would alter an [ECE] . . . ; and (3) whether the proposed arrangement was in the child’s best interests under the applicable factors and standard of proof[.]” The trial court here “committed clear legal error by failing to make and articulate the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning JS’s [ECE] and best interests. And there is nothing in the scant record” indicating the “error was somehow harmless.” The court remanded for the trial “court to conduct a new hearing on plaintiff’s motion for custody and parenting time and to make and set forth on the record proper findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding JS’s [ECE], whether the custody and parenting-time requested by plaintiff would alter [it], and whether the proposed arrangement would be in JS’s best interests.” It must consider up-to-date information in making its decisions.