Gennile Najib Hajji v. Dured Badri Hajji, 328209

Parties divorced after a high-conflict marriage with two minor children; at trial plaintiff (mother) sought sole legal and physical custody though parents previously shared joint custody.
Trial court found an established custodial environment with both parents but awarded sole legal and physical custody to plaintiff based primarily on findings under best-interest factors (notably (j) and (l)) because of the parties’ inability to communicate and ongoing acrimony.
The court conducted in-camera interviews of the children and stated it considered their preferences without disclosing details.
Defendant challenged custody, discovery rulings (seeking to depose plaintiff), child support (including income imputation and failure to account for debts), spousal support, and property/debt distribution on appeal.
Trial court calculated child support by averaging defendant’s income over the prior three years using tax forms and party testimony; it found no evidence warranting deviation from the Michigan Child Support Formula.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Custody award (sole legal & physical)	Award appropriate because plaintiff more likely to facilitate relationship and parties cannot cooperate	Trial court erred; findings against great weight of evidence and credibility determinations wrong	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; factors (j) and (l) supported award and credibility findings will be respected
Use of children's in-camera statements	Court properly considered children’s preferences without disclosing them	Defendant sought disclosure/remand to reveal preferences	Affirmed: court properly noted it considered preferences and need not reveal them
Denial of discovery (deposition) & alleged judicial bias	Discovery rulings appropriate	Denial of depositions and alleged bias denied due process	Abandoned on appeal for lack of developed argument; Court declined to address
Child support calculation (income, debts, parenting-time deviation)	Formula applied correctly; no evidence for deviation	Income improperly imputed/averaged; court ignored defendant’s debts; should base on equal parenting time	Affirmed: court averaged defendant’s prior income using submitted records; defendant failed to document debts or show deviation; modification available if circumstances change

Phillips v. Jordan, 241 Mich. App. 17 (explains standards of review in custody appeals)
Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich. App. 700 (standards and best-interest analysis in custody disputes)
Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (burden to prove change to sole custody by clear and convincing evidence)
Kessler v. Kessler, 295 Mich. App. 54 (requirement to evaluate 12 statutory best-interest factors)
Beason v. Beason, 435 Mich. 791 (limits on insulating factual findings as credibility determinations)
Heid v. AASulewski, 209 Mich. App. 587 (statutory factors need not be given equal weight)
McCain v. McCain, 229 Mich. App. 123 (no mathematical weighting of best-interest factors required)
Borowsky v. Borowsky, 273 Mich. App. 666 (standards for reviewing application of Michigan Child Support Formula)
Stallworth v. Stallworth, 275 Mich. App. 282 (discusses determining net income and imputation under the MCSF)
Sparks v. Sparks, 440 Mich. 141 (trial court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; dispositional rulings for fair and equitable standard)