Child custody; Parenting time; The statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23); Supervised parenting time; MCL 722.27a(9); School district change; Distinguishing Pierron v Pierron; Motion rulings; Judicial bias; Kern v Kern-Koskela

The court held that the trial court did not err in decreasing defendant-father’s parenting time with the parties’ child (LR) and by requiring it to be supervised. Further, the trial court did not err in allowing LR to change school districts, and the court found no error as to defendant’s claims related to various motion rulings. Finally, it rejected his judicial bias claim. Thus, it affirmed the divorce judgment granting plaintiff-mother physical custody of LR. “Because the trial court’s custody and parenting-time decisions altered LR’s established custodial environment with both parents, [it] had to find by clear and convincing evidence that the changes were in LR’s best interests under MCL 722.23.” It conducted a trial at which the “parties had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments about custody and parenting time.” The court concluded that the record did “not establish that the trial court made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence because the evidence did not clearly preponderate in the opposite direction.” As to the ruling that defendant’s parenting time should be supervised, “MCL 722.27a(9) does not require a particular showing or burden of proof for the trial court to exercise its discretion in this regard, so no error occurred.” As to the school district change, the court found that this “ruling logically followed its grant of physical custody of LR to plaintiff because” the new district was where she lived. The court noted that “defendant took the position that LR should not attend school in Wayland in his objection to the Friend of the Court’s recommended order, which was one of the issues the trial court stated that it would consider at trial along with other matters related to the divorce and custody.” The record did not support his claim that he lacked notice or an opportunity to be heard on the issue. While he contended that the trial court violated the court’s decision in Pierron, the court noted the differences between the cases. Defendant failed to show “that the trial court’s decision was ‘palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic,’” or that its “findings were against the great weight of the evidence or founded on a clear legal error[.]” Finally, nothing “in the trial court’s questioning or comments suggests that [it] was in any way biased in favor of plaintiff or against defendant.”