Parenting time; The Child Custody Act; Whether the order on appeal was a modification; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Established custodial environment (ECE)

The court held that the order at issue on appeal “did not modify the parenting time or custody arrangements” in a prior order and thus, the trial court “was not required to consider any change in circumstances, proper cause,” ECE, or the children’s best interests. The order at issue granted plaintiff-father parenting time with the children every weekend. The court noted that the earlier order (the April order) provided that he “would have parenting time with the children every weekend.” The trial court later ruled that it was enforcing that “order and continuing to grant plaintiff parenting time with the children every weekend.” Given that it “did not order a modification or change of its” April order in the order at issue, it was not required to consider the children’s ECE, “whether there was a change in circumstances or proper cause, or whether a change in parenting time was in” their best interests. Defendant-mother contended that the “order modified the parties’ parenting time. This purportedly occurred because [they] did not follow the schedule set forth in the April order since plaintiff was exercising parenting time every other weekend until the July hearing.” She asserted that they had agreed that he “would have the children every other weekend and the trial court increased plaintiff’s parenting time by enforcing its April order that he have parenting time every weekend. But the Child Custody Act is concerned with changes to ‘previous judgments or orders[.]’”