If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CARNEL HAYNIE, JR., UNPUBLISHED May 18, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 362341 Macomb Circuit Court SYLVIENASH B. MOMA, Family Division LC No. 2020-001404-UN Defendant-Appellee. Before: LETICA, P.J., and BORRELLO and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this custody dispute, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting the parties’ joint legal custody over their minor children, with defendant awarded sole physical custody and plaintiff awarded parenting time. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in its custody determination—specifically in granting defendant sole physical custody—by incorrectly finding various best-interest factors in favor of defendant, particularly when the children had an established custodial environment with plaintiff in Michigan, not with defendant out of state. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2001, defendant was a teenager when she immigrated to the United States with her parents from Cameroon. By the age of 16, she graduated high school and began to attend college where she met plaintiff. Their friendship later became romantic. While defendant attended nursing school, she worked nights and plaintiff insisted on driving and picking her up from work. Defendant became a nurse and continued her education to become a nurse practitioner. She purchased her own home in Pontiac, Michigan. The couple had an “on and off” relationship with defendant accusing plaintiff of cheating on her. Eventually, they married in 2012, and defendant gave birth to the couple’s twins in 2015, CH and ZH. After the twins’ birth, the parties disputed who was the children’s primary caretaker. Defendant testified that she stopped working to care for the children. And plaintiff contended that he dropped the children off at daycare and tended to the children after work. Although there was no domestic violence in the couple’s relationship, plaintiff was convicted of an assault on -1- defendant’s mother. Plaintiff alleged that he intervened when defendant’s mother attempted to perform a “branding” on one of his children; an assertion that defendant denied. Plaintiff denied that he committed check fraud in another state and alleged that the acts were committed by an acquaintance; plaintiff merely paid the fine to resolve the matter. Defendant testified that the couple planned to move to Colorado in 2018 to make a fresh start. There, defendant and the twins lived with defendant’s uncle while plaintiff commuted back and forth to Michigan. Plaintiff hoped to work with an investor in Colorado on an application that he created. But defendant learned that plaintiff continued to cheat on her and she asked for a divorce. In December 2018, plaintiff came to Colorado to visit the children for the holidays and took them back to Michigan without defendant’s consent. Defendant testified that she attempted to contact plaintiff about returning the twins; however, plaintiff stopped communicating with her when she mentioned the divorce. Defendant attempted to locate the twins with police and court …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals