Child custody; Sole legal custody; Sole physical custody; Best interests; MCL 722.23(d), (f), (g), (j), & (k); Friend of the Court (FOC) psychological report; Hearsay waiver; MRE 1101; Due process; Domestic violence evidence; Personal protection order; Clear & convincing evidence

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-father sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children. After the parties’ reconciliation ended, defendant-mother was arrested for domestic violence, parenting time became supervised, and the trial court later relied in part on an FOC psychologist’s report and testimony after a multi-day custody hearing. On appeal, the court first held that the mother waived any hearsay objection to the report because the appointment order provided that the parties waived hearsay objections, she submitted to the evaluation, and she did not object when the report was admitted. It rejected her claim that the trial court adopted the report wholesale, reasoning that the trial court made numerous independent findings in its 37-page opinion and was permitted to give the report “great weight.” The court also held that the trial court could consider evidence of the mother’s aggressive behavior despite her acquittal of domestic violence because custody proceedings serve the children’s best interests and apply different standards than criminal cases. Finally, the court held that the findings on factors (d), (f), (g), (j), and (k) were not against the great weight of the evidence, given the children’s stable home with the father, the evidence indicating “that defendant had mental health issues she needed to address,” her denigration of him, and domestic-violence-related evidence. Affirmed.