Motion for sole legal custody; Proper cause or change of circumstances; Vodvarka v Grasmeyer; The trial court’s consideration of letters; Due process; Effect of a stipulated arbitration award; Hearsay; Distinguishing In re Conservatorship of GT; Decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing; Corporan v Henton; Motion to suspend parenting time; Shade v Wright

The court held as to plaintiff-mother’s motion for sole legal custody that she did not make a threshold showing of proper cause or a change of circumstances (COC) to modify custody, and the trial court did not err in dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing. As to her motion to suspend defendant-father’s parenting time, an indefinite suspension amounted to a substantial modification, and she failed to make the threshold showing. Thus, the court affirmed the order denying the motions. She contended that the status of defendant’s mental health was a COC warranting a legal custody change. The trial court noted “it had long been aware of defendant’s mental-health issues, which” were addressed in the divorce judgment. His 2025 treatment “was consistent with the treatment contemplated by the judgment” and showed that he was complying with its requirements “by seeking treatment as needed.” While plaintiff asserted a police report supported that he used laughing gas recreationally “and that his mental-health status was unstable[,]” nothing in the report “verified the truth of those allegations.” She also argued that the trial court's “consideration of letters documenting defendant’s mental-health treatment status violated her due-process rights.” They were quarterly provided by defendant’s mental-health treatment providers to an arbitrator pursuant to the terms of the stipulated custody and parenting time order and the divorce judgment. After the arbitrator withdrew from the case, defendant provided them “to the trial court. In light of plaintiff’s implicit agreement with the stipulated arbitration award and custody order, which permitted and required the letters to be sent to the arbitrator,” she failed to show the trial court plainly erred in considering them after the arbitrator’s withdrawal. Further, even if they were hearsay, she did not show that it was not permitted to consider hearsay statements in considering the threshold question of proper cause or a COC. As to parenting time, the trial court found “that the police contacts and defendant’s six-week treatment were not a” COC. As plaintiff identified no evidence showing that his “mental-health status had declined or that he was unable to parent the children, she failed to establish that [its] decision was against the great weight of evidence.”