best interests of the children required maintaining custody with defendant. It is not sufficient that defendant may have established by clear and convincing evidence that a marginal, though distinct, benefit would be gained if the children were maintained with him. [Henrikson v Gable, 162 Mich App 248, 252-253; 412 NW2d 702 (1987) (emphasis added).] See also Deel, supra at 562 (explaining that “[Recognition of both presumptions does not . . . remove the third party’s burden to show that custody in his or her favor is in the child’s best interests”); Stevens, supra at 267 (“The presumption in favor of the natural parent is rebutted if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the third party.”); Bahr, supra at 359 (<HOLDING>). We agree with the foregoing analysis of the
holding that evidence that parent is victim of spousal abuse and that parent is unemployed living in crowded conditions and had multiple visits to mental hospital was no evidence that awarding custody to parent would significantly impair child holding that the domicile of the child follows that of the parent with lawful custody recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that the primary and overarching consideration in custody determination is the best interest of the child