The trial court erroneously referred this custody case to the Friend of the Court without first determining whether there was proper cause or a change in circumstances that necessitated a review of custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this case wrongly imposed restrictions on a father’s parenting time of his three minor children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

An award of sole legal custody to the father of the parties’ minor child must be reversed, because the trial court did not exercise “a proper degree of caution”.

The trial court properly awarded a father sole physical custody of his minor children, because there were legitimate concerns regarding the children’s medical care and parenting-time exchanges.

The trial court properly modified the original custody order in this case to award the plaintiff-mother sole physical custody of the parties’ minor children.

The father was erroneously granted joint physical & legal custody, because the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with the mother’s motion to change domicile.

The trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she had established the required proper cause or change in circumstances.

Even though the trial court did not conduct an interview with the parties’ children regarding their custody preferences, the decision to grant the plaintiff-mother sole legal custody was appropriate.

The trial court’s order denying the plaintiff-father’s motion to remove the lawyer-guardian ad litem (L-GAL) from this custody case is reversed and the matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The plaintiff-mother was properly awarded sole custody of the parties’ child and the defendant-father was correctly ordered to continue supervised parenting time.

A trial court correctly denied a father’s request to 1) change the parenting time schedule and 2) remove a right-of-first-refusal provision from the parties’ divorce judgment.

he evidence in a custody action demonstrated that a change in circumstances had occurred and, therefore, the trial court wrongly denied a mother’s motion to modify a custody order.

In D’itri v Bollinger, the mother of the child filed a motion to change custody claiming there was a change in circumstances in the child’s living situation.

The Court of Appeals found the actions of the Livingston Circuit Court and a FOC Referee acted "grossly improper" in their decision-making and procedures in a custody case.

The Court of Appeals in Frowner v Smith, addressed whether a parent has to satisfy the Vodvarka threshold to change custody from a third party custodian.