Motion for joint legal custody; MCL 722.26a(7)(b); Custody modification; Proper cause or a change of circumstances; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; Motion to modify parenting time; Shade v Wright; Denial of request for appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL); MCR 3.204(D); Established custodial environment (ECE)

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying plaintiff-father’s request for joint legal custody because his allegations failed to “meet the Vodvarka threshold required to permit further inquiry into whether the” prior custody order should be modified. As to parenting time, while the trial court erred in not considering “the proposed modification’s effect on the children’s custodial environment,” this error was harmless. Lastly, it did not abuse its discretion in not appointing a GAL as the record supported its decision. As to the custody ruling, the “trial court’s finding that there was ‘no change of circumstance pled to consider a referral to review the joint legal custody issue’ operated as a threshold determination that plaintiff’s allegations, even if accepted as true, did not meet the Vodvarka standard.” The court found the record supported that conclusion. Because the “allegations did not satisfy the Vodvarka threshold, the trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion for joint legal custody without findings regarding the children’s [ECE] and the best-interest factors.” And to the extent its failure to address proper cause was erroneous, the court found the error harmless. Given that the record supported the trial court’s legal determination that plaintiff’s allegations did not meet the threshold requirements, it “lacked the authority to modify the previous custody order.” As to the request to modify parenting time, plaintiff “failed to show any change, let alone the normal life changes of the type seen in Shade, that would have given the trial court a reason to revisit the parenting-time schedule. Therefore, any procedural error that the trial court committed by failing to apply the Shade framework to” his request was harmless. Finally, the trial court denied his request for a GAL on the ground that it “was not ‘appropriate.’ MCR 3.204(D) does not require detailed findings explaining the exercise of that discretion.” The court found that this ruling “reflected a reasonable conclusion that appointment would not enhance the children’s welfare, given that plaintiff’s allegations did not satisfy the threshold requirements for a change in custody or modification of parenting time.” Affirmed.