Divorce; Physical custody; Findings on the statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Factors (b), (d), (f), (j), & (l); Setting aside a settlement agreement; The Child Custody Act (CCA) requirement that the circuit court independently determine the custodial arrangement that serves children’s best interests; Harvey v Harvey; Attorney fees; MCR 3.206(D); Richards v Richards; Reed v Reed; Sexually transmitted disease (STD)

Concluding that the trial court’s factual findings and assessment of the MCL 722.23 factors were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed its custody ruling in this divorce case. Defendant-father was not entitled to any appellate relief on the basis that the trial court set aside the parties’ settlement agreement, or in regard to the award of attorney fees to plaintiff-mother. He challenged the trial court’s findings on best-interest factors (b), (d), (f), (j), and (l). He “conceded that he made two inappropriate statements” about plaintiff in the children’s presence, but contended “the trial court erred by assigning undue weight to these two statements and by applying them to multiple best-interest factors.” The court rejected his argument, noting the “trial court found that defendant’s persistent disparagement of plaintiff in the presence of the children was the primary cause of the deterioration of [her] relationship with the two older children. Significantly, [it] determined that no credible evidence supported defendant’s claims that plaintiff engaged in extramarital affairs, transmitted an STD to defendant, or attempted to harm [him] by providing improper medical care during his illness with COVID-19.” And although he only admitted to “two such statements, the evidence overwhelmingly established a pattern of frequent disparagement by defendant, or encouragement of the children to disparage plaintiff and to regard her as an unfit parent and person. Accordingly, the trial court’s factual findings regarding defendant’s conduct were not against the great weight of the evidence.” In addition, contrary to his assertion that it “erred by considering this conduct under multiple best-interest factors, the law recognizes that certain best-interest factors may overlap, and a single fact or circumstance may properly be considered under more than one factor.” As to his argument about the settlement agreement, under the CCA, a trial “court is not permitted to adopt parental stipulations without independently determining the child’s best interests.” Finally, as to the attorney fee award, substantial record evidence supported “the trial court’s finding of misconduct by defendant in relation to the alienation of the children from plaintiff” and it did not clearly err in finding that he engaged in misconduct related to a parcel of real property. Affirmed.