If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

KEITH DEVAN DOZIER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

April 25, 2024

v No. 366894

Wayne Circuit Court

KAYLA MARIA HOWELL, LC No. 18-112214-DC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and CAMERON and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Kayla Maria Howell (mother), appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting 

defendant, Keith Devan Dozier’s (father’s), motion for sole legal custody and primary physical 

custody of the couple’s minor child, KD. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. We remand to 

the trial court for further consideration of the parties’ level of cooperation and agreement.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother and father were together for eight years and have one child together, KD, who was 

born in 2013. When the parties separated in May 2018, both parties resided in Livonia and KD 

attended Livonia Public Schools. In 2019, father moved south to Southgate, where he lived during 

the entire pendency of the proceedings. Mother moved north to Saginaw in 2020, and later further 

north to Midland—moves which caused KD to change schools several times. Father lived with 

his fiancée and their children. In Saginaw, mother lived alone with KD. Mother moved to Midland 

to live with her boyfriend and his children.

On July 8, 2020, the trial court entered an order nunc pro tunc granting the parties joint 

legal and physical custody (the “2020 custody order”), with father having parenting time on 

alternating weekends during the school year and alternating weeks in the summer. The 2020

custody order stated the parties “shall have equal responsibility and decision-making authority 

with respect to the child’s health care [sic], education, religious training and overall welfare.” It

further ordered the parties to “confer with each other” regarding these issues. In the ensuing years, 

the parties had difficulty adhering to the order. Consequently, father moved to change parenting 
-2-

time—a request the trial court perceived as a change in custody, because the request was essentially

“flipping” the parties’ parenting time arrangement.

After some adjournments and attempts at mediation, the trial court held an evidentiary 

hearing on father’s motion. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order finding proper cause and a 

change in circumstances existed such that it could revisit the custody arrangement. The trial court 

further found a change in custody was in KD’s best interests and granted father’s motion. This 

appeal followed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

There are three standards of review relevant to child custody cases. Stoudemire v Thomas, 

344 Mich App 34, 42; 999 NW2d 43 (2022). We apply the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard 

to the trial court’s factual findings. Id. “A finding is against the great weight of the evidence if 

the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.” Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 

700, 706; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). We review for clear legal error any questions of law. Phillips 

v Jordan, 241 Mich App 17, 20; 614 NW2d 183 (2000). “A trial court commits clear legal error 

when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Id. Discretionary rulings, such as

those involving custody and parenting time, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Maier v 

Maier, 311 Mich App 218, 221; 874 NW2d 725 (2015). An abuse of discretion in child custody 

cases occurs when “the result [is] so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it 

evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance 

thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.” Id.; quoting Shulick v Richards, 

273 Mich App 320, 324; 729 NW2d 533 (2006) (quotation marks omitted, alteration in original).

This case also involves the trial court’s interpretation of the Child Custody Act of 1970 

(CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Johnson v 

Johnson, 329 Mich App 110, 118; 940 NW2d 807 (2019). “The principal goal of statutory 

interpretation is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, and the most reliable evidence of that 

intent is the plain language of the statute.” Id. at 119 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. FOUNDATIONAL LAW

“The purposes of [the CCA] are to promote the best interests of the child and to provide a 

stable environment for children that is free of unwarranted custody changes.” Pennington v 

Pennington, 329 Mich App 562, 570-571; 944 NW2d 131 (2019). The trial court acts as a 

gatekeeper where a parent seeks a change in custody. Id. at 571. “[A] trial court may modify or 

amend a previous child custody order or judgment for proper cause shown or because of change 

of circumstances if doing so is in the child’s best interests.” Id. (quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

The threshold question in these cases is whether the moving party demonstrates that proper 

cause or a change in circumstances exists. MCL 722.27(1)(c); Merecki v Merecki, 336 Mich App 

639, 645-646; 971 NW2d 659 (2021). “[T]o establish ‘proper cause’ necessary to revisit a custody 

order, a movant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an appropriate 

ground for legal action to be taken by the trial court.” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 

512; 675 NW2d 847 (2003). The grounds cited by the moving party “should be relevant to at least 
-3-

one of the twelve statutory best interest factors, and must be of such magnitude to have a significant 

effect on the child’s well-being.” Id. On the other hand: 

[T]o establish a “change of circumstances,” a movant must prove that, since the 

entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child, 

which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have 

materially changed. Again, not just any change will suffice, for over time there will 

always be some changes in a child’s environment, behavior, and well-being. 

Instead, the evidence must demonstrate something more than the normal life 

changes (both good and bad) that occur during the life of a child, and there must be 

at least some evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly 

have an effect on the child. This too will be a determination made on the basis of 

the facts of each case, with the relevance of the facts presented being gauged by the 

statutory best interest factors. [Id. at 513-514.]

After finding proper cause or a change in circumstances, “[t]he next step in a court’s 

custody analysis requires a determination of the appropriate burden of proof.” Kubicki v Sharpe, 

306 Mich App 525, 540; 858 NW2d 57 (2014). To decide the appropriate burden of proof, the 

court must determine the child’s established custodial environment. Id. If the proposed change 

modifies the child’s custodial environment, the moving party must present clear and convincing 

evidence that the change is in the child’s best interests. Id. If, however, the change will not alter 

the child’s established custodial environment, the moving party is beholden to a lesser standard, 

and must simply show by a preponderance of the evidence that the change is in the child’s best 

interests. Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 89-90; 782 NW2d 480 (2010).

The best-interests question is a two-part analysis that requires the trial court first to analyze 

each of the best-interest factors under MCL 722.23. Dailey v Kloenhamer, 291 Mich App 660, 

667; 811 NW2d 501 (2011). Second, the court must also “consider the general level of cooperation 

and agreement between the parties when considering joint custody.” Id. (quotation marks and 

citation omitted); see also MCL 722.26a(1)(b).

IV. PROPER CAUSE OR CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES

Mother contends the trial court erred in finding proper cause or a change in circumstances 

justified reconsideration of the 2020 custody order. We disagree.

As an initial matter, mother argues the trial court applied the incorrect standard when 

evaluating father’s motions, which father characterized as seeking a change in “parenting time.” 

Mother argues father’s motions are more properly classified as motions to change custody. In her 

view, the trial court failed to see this distinction and applied the lower standard relevant to changeof-custody motions. 

Mother is correct that sometimes parties mischaracterize their relief as a change in 

parenting time, when really what they seek is a change in custody. See, e.g., Lieberman v Orr, 

319 Mich App 68, 86 and n 9; 900 NW2d 130 (2017). She is also correct that requests to change 

parenting time are less burdensome than request for changes in custody. Id. at 84. But, mother is 

incorrect that the trial court applied the wrong standard in evaluating father’s motions to change 
-4-

“parenting time.” The relevant issue here is whether proper cause or a change in circumstances 

existed. The standard for evaluating this issue is the same regardless of whether the party requests 

a change in parenting time or a change in custody. Id. at 81-82. Moreover, it appears from the 

context of its order and on-the-record statements, that the trial court recognized father’s motions 

were more properly characterized as requests to change custody. Thus, there is nothing 

fundamentally incorrect with the trial court’s evaluation of father’s motions.

Turning to mother’s substantive arguments, the 2020 custody order explicitly outlined the 

parties’ joint legal custody arrangement, stating, in part:

Joint legal custody means that the parties shall have equal responsibility and 

decision-making authority with respect to the child’s health care, education, 

religious training and overall welfare. On all matters of importance relating to the 

child’s health care, education, religious training, and overall welfare, the parties 

shall confer with each other with a view towards adopting and following a 

harmonious policy and the parties shall make all reasonable efforts to amicably 

reach decisions that are in the best interest of their child.

In finding proper cause to change this custody arrangement, the trial court cited mother’s 

“unilateral actions” violating the 2020 custody order, and the parties’ “inability to communicate.” 

Mother challenges this finding, citing several cases which purportedly held that a parent’s violation 

of a child custody order “does not constitute proper cause or change in circumstances.”

There is no “hard or fast rule” regarding a finding of proper cause. Vodvarka, 259 Mich 

App at 511. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the grounds presented to change a custodial 

environment are “of a magnitude to have a significant effect on the child’s well-being to the extent 

that revisiting the custody order would be proper.” Id. at 512. While the parties’ inability to 

communicate and mother’s unilateral decisions certainly appear contradictory to the trial court’s 

2020 custody order, it is also true that these facts had the potential to “significantly” affect KD’s 

well-being. See, e.g., Dailey, 291 Mich App at 666 (concluding the parties’ growing 

disagreements over the child’s education and medical treatment constituted a change in 

circumstances or proper cause). Thus, there is nothing erroneous with the trial court’s conclusion 

that proper cause was established.

Mother goes on to contest the trial court’s conclusion that a change in circumstances 

existed such that the court could have revisited the 2020 custody order. She first disputes the trial 

court’s finding that “the distance between the parties’ homes is a sufficient change of 

circumstances[.]” According to mother, “[a]n intrastate move of less than 100 miles that does not 

affect the exercise of parenting time is not [a] sufficient . . . change of circumstances.” In making 

this argument, mother mischaracterizes caselaw describing when an intrastate move of less than 

100 miles amounts to proper cause or a change in circumstances warranting a new look at a custody 

order. Although such a move is not dispositive, it may be considered in determining the impact of 

the move on the child’s life and relationship with the other parent. See Powery v Wells, 278 Mich 

App 526, 528; 752 NW2d 47 (2008).

Next, mother argues the trial court improperly relied on the “hearsay” testimony of KD’s 

therapist that KD had issues including “trouble making friends, holding grudges, [and] expressing 
-5-

herself in tantrums.” Mother says the referenced statement originated from a report by the Friend 

of the Court (FOC), and because the parties did not stipulate to its admission, the trial court could 

not consider it in the context of the motion to change custody. Even if the trial court erred in its 

consideration of the FOC report, see, e.g., Duperon v Duperon, 175 Mich App 77, 79; 437 NW2d 

318 (1989) (An FOC “report and recommendation is not admissible as evidence unless both parties 

agree to admit it in evidence[]”), we need not determine the extent of this alleged error. There was 

other evidence presented throughout the proceedings that suggested KD’s mental health was 

suffering making it necessary to revisit the issue of custody. For example, mother presented 

evidence of text messages with father informing him KD was “supposedly having behavioral 

issues.”

1

Mother also claims the trial court wrongly concluded KD did not have a stable residence. 

Again, the standard is whether the trial court’s conclusions are against the great weight of the 

evidence. Berger, 277 Mich App at 706. While mother believes there was “no testimony that the 

residence changes were due to eviction, financial issues, or some other reason rendering her unable 

to maintain housing[,]” this does not mean the trial court was incorrect about the stability of 

mother’s housing situation. The record shows that mother moved more than once since the trial 

court entered the 2020 custody order. Mother’s housing situation stands in contrast to father, who 

maintained the same housing through the same time period.

Mother has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in finding proper cause or change 

of circumstances to revisit the 2020 custody order.

V. ESTABLISHED CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT

Mother next argues the trial court erred in finding KD had an established custodial 

environment with both parents. She believes KD’s established custodial environment was solely 

with her, because she was KD’s primary caretaker. We disagree. 

The term “established custodial environment” is defined by MCL 722.27(1)(c):

The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the 

child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, 

the necessities of life, and parental comfort. 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.

“An established custodial environment may exist with both parents where a child looks to both the 

mother and the father for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.” 

Berger, 277 Mich App at 707. “A custodial environment can be established as a result of a 

temporary custody order, in violation of a custody order, or in the absence of a custody order.” Id.

 

1

It is also notable that, while mother raised the question of KD’s mental health in her motion for 

reconsideration following the trial court’s order changing custody, mother did not specifically 

challenge the trial court’s reference to the FOC report. 
-6-

Mother’s argument on this issue is strange. She complains that the trial court reached the 

erroneous conclusion that KD’s established custodial environment was with both parents. In her 

view, the trial court should have concluded KD’s established custodial environment was solely 

with mother. Whether the trial court decided KD’s established custodial environment was with 

both parents, or solely with mother, it would have reached the same conclusion—that the standard 

by which to judge the best-interest factors is clear and convincing evidence. Kubicki, 306 Mich 

App at 540. Thus, it is moot whether the trial court wrongly decided KD’s established custodial 

environment was with both parents. See, e.g., In re AGD, 327 Mich App 332, 353; 933 NW2d 

751 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“A matter is moot if this Court’s ruling cannot 

for any reason have a practical legal effect on the existing controversy.”).

At any rate, the trial court did not err in concluding KD had an established custodial 

environment with both parents. Since the parties’ May 2018 separation, KD has spent alternating 

weekends with father during the school year and alternating weeks with father in the summer. 

There was also testimony that KD spent extra time in father’s care when schools and childcare 

centers closed during the pandemic because father could work remotely and supervise KD. 

Although mother may have borne the brunt of tending to KD’s healthcare and education, father 

also provided for KD while in his care. This evidence sufficiently demonstrates an established 

custodial environment with both parents.

VI. BEST INTERESTS

Finally, mother challenges the trial court’s finding that a custody modification was in KD’s 

best interests. We agree, in part, and disagree, in part.

The final step in determining whether a change in custody is warranted is evaluating 

whether the change is in the child’s best interests. This is a two-step process which first requires 

an assessment of “the sum total” of each of the factors under MCL 722.23. MCL 722.26a(1)(a). 

In reviewing the trial court’s findings under these factors, we “defer to the trial court’s credibility 

determinations, and the trial court has discretion to accord differing weight to the best-interest 

factors.” Berger, 277 Mich App at 705. The second step requires an evaluation of the parties’ 

ability to cooperate with each other. MCL 722.26a(1)(b).

A. BEST-INTEREST FACTORS

1. FACTOR (B)

Mother first challenges the trial court’s conclusion that Factor (b) favored father. This 

factor analyzes “[t]he capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, 

affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion 

or creed, if any.” MCL 722.23(b). The trial court determined Factor (b) favored father because 

“at the beginning of the pandemic, [KD] resided mostly with [father], as he was able to work from 

home and supervise [KD’s] remote learning.” By contrast, the trial court found that mother’s 

successive moves in a short period of time were not “child-focused,” and instead centered on 

mother’s own interests. Mother’s decision to move created a more than two-hour drive between 

the parents’ respective homes. These moves also caused KD to “attend three schools in two years.”
-7-

Mother challenges the trial court’s conclusions, citing itsfailure to consider father’s alleged 

deficits in this area—specifically, the testimony showing father’s refusal to participate in KD’s 

education and therapy. Mother apparently believes the trial court erred by failing to explicitly 

opine about this testimony. But, a trial court’s “conclusions need not include consideration of 

every piece of evidence entered and argument raised by the parties.” MacIntyre v MacIntyre, 267 

Mich App 449, 452; 705 NW2d 144 (2005). Further, while there was evidence demonstrating 

father attended few, if any, of KD’s school or medical appointments after mother moved to the 

Saginaw/Midland area, that does not mean the trial court erred in its evaluation under Factor (b). 

Father testified, and mother agreed, that mother did not inform father of KD’s medical

appointments. Even if he was informed of an appointment, the distance caused by mother’s move

made father’s attendance difficult. Moreover, the evidence showed father was more equipped to 

offer KD educational consistency because father’s living situation was more stable than mother’s. 

Mother had moved multiple times throughout these proceedings, causing KD to move schools, 

while father remained in the same home. Given this information, the evidence does not clearly 

preponderate in the opposite direction of the trial court’s finding that Factor (b) favors father. 

Berger, 277 Mich App at 705.

2. FACTOR (C)

Mother next challenges Factor (c), which the trial court found favored both parties. Factor 

(c) contemplates “[t]he capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with 

food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this 

state in place of medical care, and other material needs.” MCL 722.23(c). Mother argues that the 

trial court should have found this factor in her favor. She says what tipped the scales in her favor 

was her testimony that father was uninterested in KD’s medical care and mental health services.

Contrary to mother’s assertions, father testified he was interested in KD’s care, but that 

mother failed to inform him of her appointments, or request financial assistance in these areas—

facts mother confirmed in her testimony. Mother suggests on appeal the trial court should have 

afforded more weight to her testimony that father refused to participate in KD’s medical care. But, 

again, this Court “defer[s] to the trial court’s credibility determinations.” Safdar v Aziz, 342 Mich 

App 165, 176; 992 NW2d 913 (2022). The trial court obviously found father’s testimony more 

credible than mother’s, and we will not reverse on this basis.

3. FACTOR (D)

Mother next challenges the trial court’s findings as to Factor (d), which the trial court found 

“strongly” favored father. Factor (d) considers “[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable, 

satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.” MCL 722.23(d). Mother 

specifically challenges the trial court’s findings that father owned his home, and that KD had 

“difficulty” living with the children of mother’s boyfriend. She says these assertions are not 

supported by the record, and are therefore erroneous.

Whether these conclusions were erroneous is not dispositive on the ultimate question 

whether the trial court erred in finding Factor (d) favored father. It is undisputed that, during the 

relevant time period, father maintained the same residence with his fiancée and their children. 

During the same time period, mother moved at least twice to two different cities. Each of these 
-8-

moves caused KD to change schools. Thus, it was not against the great weight of the evidence for 

the trial court to conclude father was better suited to provide a stable environment for KD.

4. FACTOR (H)

Mother next challenges the trial court’s findings under Factor (h), “[t]he home, school, and 

community record of the child.” She says there was no evidence to support the trial court’s 

conclusion that KD’s behavioral challenges at school were because she moved away from father. 

The trial court’s finding was not based on father’s active benefit to KD’s home, school, and 

community record, but rather on the detrimental effect of mother’s life choices on KD’s home, 

school, and community record. The trial court reviewed the testimony and evidence regarding 

KD’s behavior at school and determined KD had not adjusted well after the moves. Although 

mother finds this analysis unfair given her active efforts to secure treatment for KD, the court’s 

finding is supported by the evidence and was, therefore, not erroneous.

5. FACTOR (J)

Mother also disputes the trial court’s findings under Factor (j), which considers “the 

willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing 

parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.” In 

finding this factor favored father, the trial court specifically found mother’s behavior “extremely 

controlling” and unreasonable. It noted that sometimes mother would withhold KD from father, 

and that mother refused to inform father of KD’s therapy or her decisions to change KD’s school. 

By contrast, the trial court concluded father was “more than willing” to help mother when needed,

such as by taking on extra parenting time.

During their testimony, the parties presented conflicting accounts of these conclusions. 

Mother said she informed father of KD’s therapy, father said she did not. Mother claimed she 

discussed the school changes with father, father disagreed. They also testified about father’s 

engagement in parenting time. Father said he was denied parenting time, while mother said she 

made every effort to engage father in parenting time. These issues clearly came down to credibility 

determinations, which the trial court was more equipped to assess, and this Court cannot resolve 

on appeal. Berger, 277 Mich App at 705.

Mother also cites father’s earlier personal protection order (PPO), apparently believing the 

trial court should have considered it and factored father’s “anger” toward mother in this portion of 

the analysis. The trial court was plainly aware of father’s PPO history, having granted one PPO 

in mother’s favor. Despite this knowledge, the trial court still found this factor favored father. It 

is not necessary for the trial court to comment on every piece of evidence, in particular where it

was aware the circumstances at issue.

2

 See Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 65; 811 NW2d 

39 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted) (“A trial court’s failure to discuss every fact in 

 

2 We further note the trial court expressly considered father’s PPO history when analyzing other 

factors.
-9-

evidence that pertains to a factor does not suggest that the relevant among them were 

overlooked.”). Thus, the evidence does not clearly preponderate in mother’s favor as to Factor (j).

6. FACTOR (L)

Finally, mother challenges the trial court’s findings as to Factor (l), which considers “[a]ny

other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute.” Under 

this factor, the trial court noted mother’s purposeful decisions to evade her coparenting duties. The 

court also formed an opinion regarding father’s hostility and his improper focus on his rights over 

KD’s interests. Weighing the stances against each other, the trial court found this factor favored 

father. This was a subjective opinion about the parties’ credibility and was supported by evidence. 

We may not interfere with that judgment. See Safdar, 342 Mich App at 177.

B. COOPERATION AND AGREEMENT

As noted above, a trial court’s analysis of the best-interest factors also requires 

consideration of “the general level of cooperation and agreement between the parties when 

considering joint custody.” Dailey, 291 Mich App at 667; see also MCL 722.26a(1)(b). The trial 

court did not cite this standard in the final opinion or order or address its elements. It must do so 

on remand. See, e.g., Molloy v Molloy, 243 Mich App 595, 607; 628 NW2d 587 (2000), vacated 

in part on other grounds 466 Mich 852 (2002) (the failure to consider the parties’ level of 

cooperation and agreement is a “clear legal error” requiring remand).3

Affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. Remanded for the limited question of the parties’ 

level of cooperation and agreement. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ James Robert Redford 

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron 

/s/ Anica Letica 

 

3 Mother also contends the trial court did not address the award of physical custody. This is 

inaccurate. After analyzing the best-interest factors of MCL 722.23, the trial court determined that 

changing KD’s established custodial environment (i.e., changing the physical custody 

arrangement) was in KD’s best interests.