Custody; Established custodial environment (ECE); MCL 722.27(1)(c); Sabatine v Sabatine; Distinguishing Kuebler v Kuebler & Bofysil v Bofysil; Time frames; Findings on the statutory best-interest factors; MCL 722.23(b), (c), (f), & (j); Fletcher v Fletcher; Friend of the Court (FOC)

The court held that the trial court considered the correct time frame and its finding that the children’s ECE was only with plaintiff-mother was not against the great weight of the evidence. Further, its finding that defendant-father did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that changing their ECE was in their best interests was also not against the great weight of the evidence. Thus, the court affirmed the divorce judgment awarding the parties joint legal custody and plaintiff physical custody of their children. Defendant first asserted that if the trial court had considered evidence from between 11/24 and 3/25 in making its initial ECE determination, it would have found “that it was with both parties, which would have changed defendant’s burden of proof at trial.” The court disagreed, noting that at the evidentiary hearing he objected to evidence from after 11/24, including a 2/25 “FOC report, because he believed the evidentiary hearing should have occurred in” 11/24. His counsel conceded this at oral argument. And, per a directive in a 3/25 order from the court that the 11/26/24 “parenting time order controlled, the trial court sustained the objection and excluded the FOC report from its consideration of the” ECE. Even without considering that “report, the trial court still concluded that it was with plaintiff.” The court found that this evidentiary ruling comported with the Supreme Court’s holding in Sabatine. Further, the trial court’s findings as to the ECE were not against the great weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that he “provided care and support for the children—including food, clothing, and health insurance for [them] through his employment—and participated in activities with [them] when they were in his care. But the trial court’s extensive consideration of the testimony (plaintiff, defendant, nanny, and FOC) resulted in a finding that an [ECE] existed with plaintiff only. And defendant” failed to show that the evidence clearly preponderated in the opposite direction. The court also rejected his challenges to the trial court’s findings on best-interest factors (b), (c), (f), and (j). It noted that the trial court found (j) slightly favored defendant, and he did not show how a finding that it “fully favored him” would have changed the trial court’s custody determination.