Child custody; Referee hearing review; MCR 3.215; Docket control; Maldonado v Ford Motor Co; Due process; Notice & opportunity to be heard; Al-Maliki v LaGrant; Children’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Established custodial environment; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Change in custody; Clear & convincing evidence; Sabatine v Sabatine

The court held that the trial court did not violate the referee-review rules or plaintiff-father’s due-process rights and did not abuse its discretion by awarding the parties joint legal and physical custody. Plaintiff had sole legal and physical custody after defendant-mother experienced mental-health issues, but defendant later sought joint custody and equal parenting time. After a referee hearing occurred without a resulting order for nearly two years, the trial court conducted further proceedings, heard evidence from defendant and a reunification therapist, and found by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody with gradually increasing parenting time was in the children’s best interests. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court properly exercised its inherent authority to manage its docket because MCR 3.215 did not bar review where “two years have elapsed since the referee’s hearing on a motion without the issuance of a proposed order.” The court next held that plaintiff received due process because defendant had repeatedly requested joint physical and legal custody, those requests remained pending, and plaintiff had “both notice and an opportunity to be heard.” As to the best-interest findings, the court held that the evidence did not clearly preponderate against the trial court’s findings, including its reliance on defendant’s testimony about resolved mental-health issues and her ongoing treatment. The court also upheld the finding that factor (j) strongly favored defendant because plaintiff opposed “almost any relationship” between defendant and the children, while defendant expressed support for the children’s relationship with both parents. Finally, the court held that the custody change was supported by the reunification therapist’s recommendation for unsupervised and gradually increasing parenting time and did not “grossly violate fact or logic.” Affirmed.