Child Custody Act (CCA); Change of domicile; MCL 722.31; Existing custody order requirement; Affidavit of parentage (AOP); Kessler v Kessler; Kleinfeldt v Stern; Original custody action; MCL 722.27; Established custodial environment; Best-interest factors; MCL 722.23(f), (j) & (l); Parenting time; MCL 722.27(1)(b); Child support; MCR 3.211(D)

The court held that MCL 722.31’s change-of-domicile framework did not apply because no existing custody order governed the child, and it found no reversible error in the trial court’s custody, parenting-time, or child-support rulings. The parties executed an AOP after their child’s birth but had no custody order when plaintiff-father filed this original custody action after defendant-mother announced plans to relocate to Arizona. Mother later moved the child there and sought permission to change domicile. The court explained that MCL 722.31 applies only when parental custody is already governed by court order. An AOP “is not an initial custody order,” and consequently “the factors set forth in MCL 722.31 do not apply.” The trial court therefore properly began under MCL 722.27 by determining the established custodial environment and then considering the MCL 722.23 best-interest factors. Because the child had an established custodial environment with both parents in Michigan, mother bore the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden to establish that disrupting it was in the child’s best interests. The trial court’s earlier mistaken statement that mother had not filed a domicile motion was harmless because it later recognized and ruled on the motion, and mother had moved the child before filing it. The court also upheld findings favoring father under best-interest factors (f), (j), and (l), including findings that mother’s sexual-abuse allegations were not credible and that her unilateral relocation reflected poor judgment and interfered with father’s relationship with the child. The trial court permissibly established general parenting-time terms pending a later hearing because neither party requested greater specificity. It also properly reserved child support for that hearing under MCR 3.211(D). Affirmed.