Divorce; Parenting time; Lieberman v Orr; MCL 722.23(b), (c), (f), (h), & (j); Distinguishing Bofysil v Bofysil; Child support; The Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF); Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO)

The court held that the trial court did not err in (1) awarding defendant-father less parenting time than plaintiff-mother during the school year or (2) calculating his income for purposes of child support. As to parenting time, he contended “the trial court erroneously ruled that the evidence favored plaintiff under” statutory best-interest Factors (b), (c), (h), and (j). He also asserted that this case was similar to Bofysil and that the trial court clearly erred in not following its reasoning. The court found Bofysil distinguishable, as “the evidence in this case did not show that defendant arranged his work schedule so that he could—and did—provide significant regular care for the children during the school year.” And unlike the stay-at-home parent there, “plaintiff worked full-time outside the home and provided income and benefits for the family. She also provided the overwhelming majority of the care for the children in the months and years preceding the divorce trial.” The court found that, in contrast to “the situation in Bofysil, defendant did not play an active role in the children’s daily routines during the school year even when he was not at work; however, plaintiff did so while also working full-time.” The court also disagreed with his claim that she “prevented him from participating in the daily care of the children.” It affirmed the trial court’s ruling that “Factors (b), (c), and (h) favored plaintiff because its findings of fact were not contrary to the great weight of the evidence or founded on clear legal error.” The court also rejected defendant’s arguments as to Factors (j) and (f). It held that the “trial court’s factual findings were supported by the record evidence and” he failed to show “that its determinations clearly preponderated in the opposite direction or that [it] made a clear legal error on a major issue.” As to child support, defendant did not show “that the trial court clearly erred when it determined the parties’ incomes or that the UCSO constituted an abuse of discretion[.]” Affirmed.