Child custody; De novo hearing; MCL 552.507; Live evidence; MCR 3.215(F)(2); Butters v Butters; Child’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Pierron v Pierron; School placement; Legal custody; Parental cooperation; Plachta v Plachta; Future custody motions; Proper cause or change of circumstances; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Psychological evaluations; Filing precondition; Mildenberg v Mildenberg (Unpub)

In an issue of first impression, the court held that the trial court erred by requiring psychological evaluations before either party could file future custody or parenting-time motions. But it did not reversibly err in its evidentiary rulings or best-interest determinations. After plaintiff-mother moved for sole legal custody, a school change, and related parenting-time changes, the referee recommended that defendant-father have sole legal custody, that the child remain in the original school, and that both parties undergo psychological evaluations before future motions. The trial court “denied plaintiff’s objections and adopted the referee’s recommendation as its order.” On appeal, the court first held that the trial court did not reversibly err by limiting live evidence at the de novo hearing because MCR 3.215(F)(2) allows courts to control evidence “in the interest of judicial economy,” and any exclusion of additional weight-gain evidence was harmless given the “significant evidence regarding the child’s weight” already presented. The court next held that keeping the child in the original school was not against the great weight of the evidence because plaintiff’s attempted “interference with the child’s counselor cautioned against” placing the child where plaintiff had more influence, and there was insufficient evidence the child would be better situated in the new school. The court also upheld sole legal custody for defendant because the parties’ coparenting was “toxic[],” plaintiff showed an unwillingness to compromise, and defendant testified he would continue to consult plaintiff. But the court held that the psychological-evaluation precondition conflicted with MCL 722.27(1)(c), which permits modification upon “proper cause” or “change of circumstances.” The court explained that the trial court improperly placed “an obstacle before its doors” by adding a filing condition beyond the statute. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.