In December 1991, after considering the statutory factors for determining the best interests of the children, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting physical custody of the parties' children to plaintiff. However, the Supreme Court concluded that this Court erred in applying a de novo standard of review to determine the proper custody arrangement, and therefore remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Current Appeal Consistent with the instruction of the Supreme Court, the trial court conducted several evidentiary hearings on remand. The hearings occurred over approximately an eight-month period. At the conclusion of these hearings, the trial court found that no established custodial environment existed and that custody was to be determined upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular placement was in the children's best interests.
Defendant now appeals from that decision.
The Supreme Court clarified in the first appeal of this case the proper standard of review in child custody cases. Findings of fact are reviewed under the great weight of evidence standard, and will be affirmed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction. Therefore, because the trial court's custody decision is a discretionary dispositional ruling, a custody award should be affirmed unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Finally, questions of law in custody decisions are reviewed for clear legal error. A trial court commits legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.