COA 378854 ERICA L ELLISON V SAMUEL EUGENE ELLISON Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 9/11/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
ERICA L. ELLISON,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
September 11, 2026
1:29 PM
v No. 378854
Midland Circuit Court
SAMUEL EUGENE ELLISON, LC No. 14-001948-DM
Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee.
Before: WALLACE, P.J., and CAMERON and KOROBKIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this child-custody dispute, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order modifying
parenting time and awarding defendant primary physical custody of their two minor children. We
vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
When plaintiff and defendant divorced, the judgment of divorce awarded them joint legal
and physical custody of their children. The parties alternated parenting time every other week.
After several years of this arrangement, defendant filed an ex parte petition asserting that plaintiff’s
live-in boyfriend, Brandon Houtz, was behaving inappropriately toward the children. The petition
alleged that Houtz was touching the children on their buttocks, making inappropriate comments
on their appearance, and had assaulted one of the minor children. Further, defendant alleged that
plaintiff was not following a safety plan that she had signed from Children’s Protective Services
(CPS). The trial court ultimately ordered that plaintiff and defendant would continue to share joint
legal and physical custody of the children and that parenting time would occur in alternating week
intervals. The court ordered that during parenting time with plaintiff, Houtz “shall not be alone
with the minor children” and “shall not touch (physical contact) the minor children under any
circumstances.”
Two years after this order entered, defendant again sought an ex parte modification of
custody and parenting time because, he asserted, plaintiff had failed to comply with the prior order
due to Houtz continuing to touch the children. The court entered a temporary order that suspended

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
plaintiff’s parenting time. Plaintiff filed an objection, asserting that defendant’s allegations were
false and that it would be against the children’s best interests to suspend her parenting time.
The trial court held a hearing on defendant’s ex parte motion, at which Houtz and a law
enforcement officer testified. The officer testified regarding an interview he conducted with
plaintiff who confirmed that the children had been left with Houtz without another adult present,
in violation of the court’s order. Likewise, plaintiff admitted during the interview that Houtz
continued to touch the children, including Houtz touching their legs with his hands, hugging them,
and entering the children’s rooms while they were in bed and removing the blankets. Houtz
admitted to touching the children on their buttocks with his hand, wrestling with them, touching
one of the children with his hand on her leg, hugging them (allegedly at their initiation), and pulling
the blanket off of one of the children when she slept, purportedly in an attempt to wake her up after
sleeping late. Houtz admitted that he had been in the children’s presence when their mother was
not home, but testified that he and plaintiff interpreted the court’s order to indicate that he could
do so as long as his children, who also lived in the home, were present.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court expressed surprise that grown adults, i.e.,
plaintiff and Houtz, would interpret the court’s order to indicate that Houtz could be present with
the children, without either of their parents being present, because Houtz’s own minor children
were there. The court held that this was “clearly not the intent” of the order. It likewise expressed
dissatisfaction with the violation of the no physical contact order. Ultimately, the court found that
defendant presented evidence sufficient to find proper cause to revisit the prior order on parenting
time and custody. The court scheduled a later evidentiary hearing on custody and parenting time
and ordered that plaintiff’s parenting time would occur at plaintiff’s sister’s residence.
At the evidentiary hearing, plaintiff and a CPS investigator confirmed that the children
were subject to repeated instances of touching by Houtz after the prior order prohibiting Houtz
from touching the children was in effect. Additionally, their testimony confirmed that the children
were left alone with Houtz, even though Houtz and plaintiff contended that Houtz’s teenage
children were present, which, plaintiff argued, complied with the prior order.
Forensic interviews of the children were introduced as evidence, and the CPS investigator
testified that the cases involving the children and Houtz were closed because the allegations of
Houtz’s misconduct did not rise to the level of CPS standards for sexual abuse.
The trial court held that there was an established custodial environment for the children
with both plaintiff and defendant, and that defendant’s motion to modify parenting time would
change those established custodial environments. The trial court then made findings as to the best-
interest factors contained in MCL 722.23 before it found clear and convincing evidence that it was
in each of the children’s “best interests for the parties to continue sharing joint legal custody, with
physical custody to Defendant Father.”
Plaintiff now appeals.

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
II. ANALYSIS
On appeal, plaintiff challenges whether the trial court found proper cause to revisit the prior
order on parenting time and custody and argues that the trial court’s findings on the best-interest
factors were against the great weight of the evidence and clearly erroneous.
“We apply three standards of review in custody cases. The great weight of the evidence
standard applies to all findings of fact.” Merecki v Merecki, 336 Mich App 639, 644; 971 NW2d
659 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Child Custody Act demands that “all
orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made
findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion
or a clear legal error on a major issue.” MCL 722.28. The trial court’s determination as to whether
a party has demonstrated proper cause or a change of circumstances is upheld unless it is against
the great weight of the evidence. Merecki, 336 Mich App at 644-645. “A finding of fact is against
the great weight of the evidence if the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.”
Id. at 645 (quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial court’s discretionary rulings, “such as
custody decisions,” are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. (quotation marks and citation
omitted). For child custody determinations, an abuse of discretion “exists when the result is so
palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of
judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Questions of law are reviewed for clear legal error,” which occurs when a trial court “incorrectly
chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
“Before modifying a custody order or a parenting-time order, a court must first consider
whether the moving party has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence a change of
circumstances or proper cause.” Barretta v Zhitkov, 348 Mich App 539, 552; 19 NW3d 420
(2023).
In order to establish a “change of circumstances,” a movant must prove that, since
the entry of the last custody order, the conditions surrounding custody of the child,
which have or could have a significant effect on the child’s well-being, have
materially changed. Again, not just any change will suffice, for over time there will
always be some changes in a child’s environment, behavior, and well-being.
Instead, the evidence must demonstrate something more than the normal life
changes (both good and bad) that occur during the life of a child, and there must be
at least some evidence that the material changes have had or will almost certainly
have an effect on the child. [Quint v Quint, 351 Mich App 162, 170; 34 NW3d 616
(2024) (brackets omitted), quoting Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499,
513-514; 675 NW2d 847 (2003).]
Proper cause “requires the party seeking the custody change to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence the existence of an appropriate ground.” Pennington v Pennington, 329 Mich App 562,
571-572; 944 NW2d 131 (2019). Additionally, “the ground must be relevant to at least one of the
twelve statutory best-interest factors.” Id. at 572.
The trial court concluded that defendant presented sufficient evidence to find proper cause
to revisit the prior parenting time and custody order. It noted that plaintiff directly violated the

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
previous order and that the record reflected that the children were clearly uncomfortable with
Houtz’s conduct. Additionally, the trial court stated that it was confused as to why the children
continued to be subjected to unwanted touching by Houtz when the prior order was put in place to
prevent this conduct. Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court found proper cause based on the
violation of the prior order alone is misplaced, because the trial court’s reasoning reflects that it
was considering the substantive effect of Houtz’s conduct on the children.
Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that neither finding rises to the level of proper cause and
additionally questions the integrity of the CPS investigation as well as the children’s statements in
their respective forensic interviews. Plaintiff characterizes the allegations against Houtz as
baseless and unsubstantiated, but plaintiff has mischaracterized the reports. The CPS report notes
that CPS would not pursue further investigation based upon its opinion that Houtz’s alleged
conduct did not rise to the level of sexual abuse, not because the CPS investigator found the
children’s statements lacked veracity. The report’s notes indicate that the CPS investigator and a
law enforcement officer characterized Houtz’s behavior as “grooming,” and he might have been
testing the older child to see what he could get away with around her. Overall, the record before
this Court reflects that the children were subjected to unwanted touching by Houtz repeatedly and
consistently while the prior order was in effect. The children having their bodily autonomy and
boundaries repeatedly disregarded by an unrelated adult while at plaintiff’s residence directly bears
on their mental well-being and calls into question whether it is a “stable, satisfactory environment”
under MCL 722.23(d). The trial court’s finding of proper cause was not against the great weight
of the evidence.
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court clearly erred in making findings against the great
weight of the evidence when it found that the best-interest factors clearly and convincingly
supported awarding defendant physical custody of the children. Custody decisions require that the
trial court make findings as to every MCL 722.23 best-interest factor while parenting time
decisions only require findings as to factors relevant to contested issues. Shade v Wright, 291
Mich App 17, 31-32; 805 NW2d 1 (2010). Our Supreme Court has also held the following
regarding a trial court’s findings concerning the best-interest factors:
To summarize, when considering an important decision affecting the
welfare of the child, the trial court must first determine whether the proposed
change would modify the established custodial environment of that child. In
making this determination, it is the child’s standpoint, rather than that of the
parents[’], that is controlling. If the proposed change would modify the established
custodial environment of the child, then the burden is on the parent proposing the
change to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the change is in the
child’s best interests. Under such circumstances, the trial court must consider all
the best-interest factors because a case in which the proposed change would modify
the custodial environment is essentially a change-of-custody case. On the other
hand, if the proposed change would not modify the established custodial
environment of the child, the burden is on the parent proposing the change to
establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change is in the child’s best
interests. In addition, under those circumstances, although the trial court must
determine whether each of the best-interest factors applies, if a factor does not
apply, the trial court need not address it any further. In other words, if a particular

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
best-interest factor is irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., whether the proposed
change is in the best interests of the child, the trial court need not say anything other
than that the factor is irrelevant. [Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93; 782
NW2d 480 (2010).]
MCL 722.23 sets forth the following factors that a court must consider and weigh in a best-
interest determination:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties
involved and the child.
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child
love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child
in his or her religion or creed, if any.
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child
with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted
under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory
environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial
home or homes.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(g) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(h) The home, school, and community record of the child.
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court considers the child to
be of sufficient age to express preference.
(j) The willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate and
encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and
the other parent or the child and the parents. A court may not consider negatively
for the purposes of this factor any reasonable action taken by a parent to protect a
child or that parent from sexual assault or domestic violence by the child’s other
parent.
(k) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed
against or witnessed by the child.
(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular
child custody dispute.

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
In this case, the trial court held that defendant’s motion for a change in parenting time or
custody would result in a change of the established custodial environment of the children.
Therefore, the trial court was required to consider all of the best-interest factors. Pierron, 486
Mich at 92-93. However, the trial court specifically declined to assess factors (g), (j), and (k) after
determining that they were “otherwise irrelevant” to the trial court’s holding. The trial court is
only permitted to state that a factor is irrelevant if the motion would not change the established
custodial environment, id. at 93, and, as stated, the trial court concluded that it would change the
established custodial environment. Therefore, the trial court erred when it did not make explicit
findings regarding each of the best-interest factors despite determining that defendant’s motion
would change the established custodial environment. Shade, 291 Mich App at 31-32.
By failing to consider and weigh all the statutory factors, the trial court committed clear
legal error.1 As a result, this Court declines to address plaintiff’s other arguments concerning other
aspects of the trial court’s best-interest findings.
For the reasons stated above, we vacate the order granting physical custody to defendant
and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do
not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Randy J. Wallace
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin
1 We are mindful of the fact that there are occasions in which a certain factor may not appear to be
relevant in a given case; however, pursuant to Pierron, if the proposed change would result in a
change in custody, then such factors must nonetheless be considered by the trial court because,
again, all of the best interest factors must be considered in such situations, Pierron, 486 Mich at
92-93.

-- 6 of 6 --