Accordingly, the trial court did not err in exercising jurisdiction in this matter. Next, defendant argues that the lower court erred in finding that appellees had standing to oppose his petition for a change of custody. However, the third-party statute is not relevant to the current discussion in that the statute identifies which persons have standing to bring original actions seeking custody. This was not an original action, but a hearing on a petition by defendant to modify an existing order. Accordingly, there was no error in finding that appellees had standing to contest defendant's petition.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in applying the wrong standard of proof.
Specifically, he maintains that the trial court failed to recognize that when a parent challenges an order awarding custody to a third person, the parent is required to prove only by a preponderance of the evidence that a modification would be in the child's best interests. We agree with defendant that appellees' counsel mischaracterized the burden of proof during closing arguments by asserting that the standard of proof was clear and convincing evidence, and acknowledge that defense counsel failed to object. It is possible that the trial court applied this higher standard, but the record does not indicate which burden of proof the trial court applied. Because any conclusions in this regard would amount to speculation, we decline to review this issue. Here, the trial court indicated that after reviewing its notes of the testimony taken before it, the statutes involved, and the case law cited to it, it adopted the findings contained in the Friend of the Court report, which covered all the factors at issue in detail, as its own.