Child custody; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Sabatine v Sabatine; Child’s best interests; MCL 722.23; Contempt; Parent-child relationship; Parenting time; MCL 722.27a; Joint custody; MCL 722.26a

The court held that the trial court did not err by awarding defendant-father sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the child and limiting plaintiff-mother’s parenting time. After the parties moved from California to Michigan, plaintiff repeatedly pursued abuse allegations against defendant, withheld parenting time, and sought relief in multiple jurisdictions, while investigations into defendant were closed without action. On appeal, the court first held that the trial court’s finding that the child had an ECE only with defendant was not against the great weight of the evidence. The relevant custodial environment is the one existing when the custody decision is made, and under Sabatine, it must be viewed “from the child’s perspective, not the parents’ perspective.” Although plaintiff had been the child’s primary caretaker earlier, that environment “no longer existed” because plaintiff’s conduct created instability and defendant had cared for the child for approximately 10 months. The court next held that the best-interest findings were supported because the trial court linked plaintiff’s contempt and order violations to their effect on the child, specifically plaintiff’s effort “to thwart defendant’s parenting time and alienate him” from the child. It also found that the trial court did not improperly punish plaintiff but focused on the child’s best interests. Finally, the court upheld the parenting-time order because plaintiff had a history of violating orders and there was concern she could leave the country with the child. Affirmed.