Change of domicile; Best interests under MCL 722.23; Rains v Rains; Change of custody; Proper cause or change of circumstances under MCL 722.27(1)(c); Merecki v Merecki; Established custodial environment (ECE); Burden of proof; Pierron v Pierron; Joint legal custody; Ability to cooperate under MCL 722.26a(1)(b); Bofysil v Bofysil

The court held that the trial court’s order had to be vacated because its findings on the domicile motion were insufficient for appellate review as to best-interest factors (a) and (b), and because it failed to make the threshold and statutory findings necessary to grant defendant’s request for a change in legal custody. Plaintiff-mother and defendant-father divorced in 2020, and plaintiff received sole legal and physical custody of their child (RLR). Years later plaintiff sought to move the child’s domicile to Texas while defendant moved for joint legal custody. The trial court denied the domicile motion and granted the custody motion. On appeal the court held that the domicile ruling could not stand because the trial court merely stated that factors (a) and (b) were “equal between the parties” and failed to “explain which facts or evidence supported this conclusion,” leaving the record insufficient to determine whether “the evidence clearly preponderates against the trial court’s findings.” The court next held that the legal-custody ruling was defective because the trial court “failed to analyze whether defendant had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proper cause or a change of circumstances warranted revisiting the custody arrangement,” and “never made the threshold determination of whether modifying legal custody would change RLR’s” ECE. It also held that the trial court erred because it did not conduct the required best-interest analysis for the custody motion itself and did not expressly address whether the parties could “cooperate and generally agree concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of the child.” Because these omitted findings precluded appellate review, the order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.