In denying a divorced mother’s request for a change of domicile for herself and the parties’ children, the trial court made a “procedural misstep” by not properly addressing the 100-mile rule.

The trial court’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

The trial court improperly held that the plaintiff forfeited his objections to the FOC referee’s recommendations and went ahead and adopted the referee’s recommendations.

Trial court erroneously granted a father’s motion to move to TX with children because, there was insufficient evidence the children’s lives would be improved by relocating.

Defendant’s motion to change domicile to a foreign county would alter the established custodial environment with one parent and is not in the best interests of the child.

The trial court committed “clear legal error” by considering whether the children’s mother would be able to maintain her existing parenting-time schedule if the children moved to IN.

A trial court correctly rejected a mother’s motion to change the domicile of the parties’ minor child to Pakistan because Pakistan is not a party to the Hague Convention.

From Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54 (2011), the Court held that the lower court was not obligated to consider the change of domicile factors.