We hold that the established custodial environment presumption in MCL 722.27(1)(c) must yield to the parental presumption in MCL 722.25(1). The parental presumption can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence that custody with the natural parent is not in the best interests of the child. We also hold that MCL 722.25(1) satisfies constitutional scrutiny under Troxel. Due process does not require a threshold determination of parental fitness in custody cases. The Court of Appeals decision in Mason v Simmons is overruled.

How easy is that?

Basically, the lower court had given the aunt and uncle a presumption in the custody decision because the children had an established custodial environment with them (i.e., the kids had been living with them), but the Supreme Court held that the constitutional rights of parents and the stautory scheme in Michigan required the trial court to give the presumption to the parents instead, unless by clear and convincing evidence the aunt and uncle could prove that it was not in the children's best interests to be with the parents.

So, you get the Court's and my summary!