Meagan Rachel Emmons v. Justin Allen Vancourt, 335703

Background

Parties divorced by consent judgment in 2012 awarding joint legal and physical custody of their daughter (TFV); defendant originally had limited evening and alternating weekend parenting time.
In 2014 the parties verbally agreed to a revised schedule: an overnight midweek and Friday evenings to start alternating weekends; this increased defendant’s overnights from ~100 to a larger share but plaintiff still had substantially more overnights.
In 2016 defendant moved to modify parenting time; plaintiff argued the motion sought a custody change and thus required a showing of changed circumstances.
The trial court found TFV had an established custodial environment with both parents, concluded the requested modification was a parenting-time change (not a custody change), identified several changes of circumstance (child older, starting school, defendant’s efforts since 2014), and modified the schedule to make overnights essentially equal.
The Court of Appeals vacated the modification and remanded, holding the trial court erred as its parenting-time order effectively altered the established custodial environment and therefore required application of the Vodvarka standard (proper cause/change of circumstances by a preponderance, then best interests by clear and convincing evidence).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly treated the request as a parenting-time modification rather than a change of custodial environment	Vancourt: the motion sought a change of custody and, because there was no change of circumstances, it should be denied	Vancourt: (defendant) sought only to modify parenting time; normal life changes justified modification	The Court of Appeals held the modification substantially altered the custodial environment and thus the trial court erred by applying the parenting-time standard from Shade instead of the Vodvarka custody-change framework
Standard required when a parenting-time change affects an established custodial environment	Parenting-time standard (more lenient) applied by plaintiff	Parenting-time modification standard applied by defendant	Court: If a modification changes the established custodial environment, Vodvarka proper-cause/change-of-circumstances framework must be used, then best interests must be shown by clear and convincing evidence
Whether an established custodial environment existed with both parents	Vancourt: implied that plaintiff’s custodial role remained primary	Defendant: both parents provided stable, permanent homes; child looked to both for comfort and guidance	Court: trial court correctly found an established custodial environment with both parents; evidence did not clearly preponderate otherwise
Whether the reduction in plaintiff’s overnights was substantial enough to alter custodial environment	Plaintiff: reduction was not justified without meeting custody-change burden	Defendant: increased time was justified by child’s age, school start, and defendant’s involvement since 2014	Court: reduction from ~265 to 182.5 overnights (loss of ~82.5 days) likely affects custodial environment; therefore the change required Vodvarka analysis

Key Cases Cited

Corporan v. Henton, 282 Mich. App. 599 (Mich. Ct. App.) (explaining purpose of MCL 722.27 to minimize unwarranted custody changes)
Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich.) (standard for reviewing custody findings and abuse of discretion)
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich. App. 499 (Mich. Ct. App.) (defining "proper cause" and "change of circumstances" for custody modifications)
Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich. App. 17 (Mich. Ct. App.) (discussing when parenting-time modifications require custodial-environment analysis)
Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich. App. 313 (Mich. Ct. App.) (holding substantial reduction in a parent’s time can affect established custodial environment)
Baker v. General Motors (Baker), [citation="411 Mich. ]" ] (Mich.) (defining established custodial environment elements)