In modifying a custodial environment, a trial court must make findings on the statutory parenting time best interests factors, which differ from the custody best interests factors, to determine if there is clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the child's best interests. Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 426; 395 NW2d 65 (1986). In this case, the parties do not dispute the trial court's finding that there was an established custodial environment with both parties, despite defendant having been awarded sole physical custody of the minor child in 2014.
When making a ruling on a change in custody "the circuit court must expressly evaluate each best-interest factor and state its reasons for granting or denying the custody request on the record." Dailey, 291 Mich App at 667, citing MCL 722.26a and Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 426; 395 NW2d 65 (1986). The circuit court did not consider whether plaintiff proved by a preponderance of evidence that it would be in BL's best interests for her to have sole custody of him, and did not consider the best interests factors in MCL 722.23.
When ruling on a custody motion, the circuit court must expressly evaluate each best-interest factor and state its reasons for granting or denying the custody request on the record. MCL 722.26a; Meyer v. Meyer, 153 Mich. App. 419, 426; 395 N.W.2d 65 (1986). The record confirms that the circuit court properly considered each best-interest factor and that the parties were equal on the majority of the factors.
However, this Court may exercise its power of de novo review in child custody matters and make its own determination whether an established custodial environment existed where the lower court record permits. Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich. App. 419, 423; 395 N.W.2d 65 (1986); Arndt v Kasem, 135 Mich. App. 252; 353 N.W.2d 497 (1984). MCL 722.27(c); MSA 25.312(7)(c) provides in pertinent part:
The age of the child, the physical environment, and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be considered. Under this statute, once a custodial environment has been established, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a change would be in the best interest of the child before the change can be ordered. Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich. App. 419, 422; 395 N.W.2d 65 (1986); Lyons v Lyons, 125 Mich. App. 626, 632; 336 N.W.2d 844 (1983). The trial court in its opinion recognized its responsibility to determine whether an established custodial environment existed.
See MCL 722.27(1)(c); MSA 25.312(7)(1)(c). Where, as here, a review of the trial court's opinion reveals no mention of a custodial environment, this Court will exercise its de novo review power in child custody matters to make its own determination as to whether a custodial environment has been established. See Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich. App. 419; 395 N.W.2d 65 (1986). The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the parent in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life and parental comforts.
Moreover, on a de novo review of the trial record, we find that the children had an established custodial environment with defendant. Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich. App. 419, 423; 395 N.W.2d 65 (1986). Next, plaintiff argues that the trial judge gave too much weight to the fact that James Gable had provided an established custodial environment and not enough weight to the fact that plaintiff was the children's natural father.