Rane R Walker II v. Sarah Jean Walker, 334752

Parties divorced in 2010 and initially agreed to joint legal and physical custody; plaintiff later surrendered physical custody to defendant in May 2010.
In October 2011 the parties entered a settlement keeping joint legal custody but awarding defendant physical custody; plaintiff received alternating weekends and Wednesdays parenting time.
Plaintiff filed multiple motions: December 2010 (to set aside consent order and seek sole custody), February 2015 (alleging medical, hygiene, supervision, counseling, homework issues), and April 2016 (seeking 50-50 joint physical custody).
The trial court in 2015 ordered adherence to pediatrician vaccination recommendations and counseling; plaintiff was told he could raise continuing patterns in future motions.
For the April 2016 motion plaintiff relied chiefly on a counselor’s letter alleging defendant discouraged the children from discussing feelings, left them unattended, neglected hygiene and homework; defendant disputed these claims and contested the weight of the counselor’s letter.
The trial court denied plaintiff’s April 2016 motion, concluding he failed to meet the threshold showing of proper cause or a change of circumstances for either custody or parenting-time modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff showed a change of circumstances to warrant a custody hearing	Walker argued counselor’s letter plus prior CPS contact and defendant’s 2013 domestic violence involvement showed material changes affecting children’s well‑being	Walker’s allegations were disputed; defendant said children were fine in school, hygiene addressed, and CPS claims unsubstantiated	Court held Walker failed to prove a material change of circumstances by a preponderance; denial affirmed
Whether plaintiff showed a change of circumstances to warrant modification of parenting time	Walker argued same facts (counselor’s letter, CPS contact, domestic‑violence history) justified 50/50 parenting time	Defendant disputed allegations; emphasized children’s welfare and that plaintiff knew of CPS contact earlier	Court held Walker failed to meet threshold even under the more expansive Shade framework; denial affirmed

Berger v. Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (trial court custody findings reviewed for great‑weight‑of‑the‑evidence, palpable abuse of discretion, or clear legal error)
McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich App 471 (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513 (definition of palpable abuse of discretion in custody cases)
Shulick v. Richards, 273 Mich App 320 (clear legal error standard)
Corporan v. Henton, 282 Mich App 599 (standard for proving proper cause or change of circumstances)
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499 (definition of material change of circumstances warranting custody modification)
Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 291 Mich App 660 (escalation of parental disagreements can constitute proper cause/change)
Shade v. Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (different standard for parenting‑time modifications depending on effect on established custodial environment)
Pierron v. Pierron, 486 Mich 81 (definition of established custodial environment)
Jack v. Jack, 239 Mich App 668 (remand required when trial court fails to determine existence of established custodial environment and record is insufficient for de novo review)
Thames v. Thames, 191 Mich App 299 (same principle regarding remand vs. de novo review)