Child custody; Remand compliance; Fletcher v Fletcher; Children’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a(1)(b); Parental cooperation; Bofysil v Bofysil

The court held that the trial court complied with the prior remand order, did not err in its best-interest findings, and did not abuse its discretion by awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody. After the court previously vacated the custody order and remanded for a best-interest hearing, the trial court conducted several days of evidentiary hearings, found that the children had ECEs with both parents, and again ordered joint legal and physical custody. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court complied with the remand because the prior opinion required “a hearing to consider the children’s best interests,” and the trial court did exactly that by holding an evidentiary hearing and resolving defendant-father’s motion. The court next upheld the trial court’s best-interest findings, emphasizing that the trial court was not required to address “every piece of evidence,” was in the best position to assess credibility, and had record support for weighing the challenged factors equally. The court noted evidence that both parents loved the children, provided care, participated in schooling and activities, and had strengths and weaknesses. Although there was concerning evidence, including inappropriate comments by the children, plaintiff-mother’s “No Brad Rule” (referring to defendant), and conflict over appointments and parenting issues, the evidence did not “clearly preponderate” against the trial court’s findings. Finally, the court held that joint legal custody was a closer question, but reversal was unwarranted because the trial court found that the parties generally worked out disputes, the children were older, and the trial court remained available if the parties reached an impasse. Affirmed.