Child custody; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Child’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Parenting time modification; Pierron v Pierron; Evidentiary standard; Stoudemire v Thomas; Cross-examination; MRE 614(a); Due process; HMM by Next Friend CM v JS

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding plaintiff-mother sole physical custody and defendant-father joint legal custody and parenting time, and did not err in its handling of cross-examination. The parties appeared in propria persona in a custody dispute involving their young child. On appeal, the court first held that any omission in the ECE analysis was harmless because “even under the higher evidentiary standard, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the best interests favored sole physical custody for the mother.” The court emphasized that the child was “quite young” and being breastfed, had spent most of her life with plaintiff, and that “at this early stage of the child’s development, the trial court correctly concluded that this favored plaintiff.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the order reduced his parenting time because the record did not support his assertion that he had the child five days a week. Instead, the prior arrangement involved Tuesday/Thursday and alternating weekend visits, while the new order gave him slightly more total time and added overnight visits. Thus, the order “formalizes the situation that the child is accustomed to, while also increasing the time and providing overnight visits with defendant.” The court next held that defendant was not denied due process when plaintiff questioned him but he did not question plaintiff. Under MRE 614(a), each party was entitled to cross-examine, but “it is defendant’s error, not the trial court’s, that defendant failed to exercise his right[.]” Because the trial court did not prevent cross-examination and defendant failed to show prejudice, no error occurred. Affirmed.