MJI - Domestic Relations QRMs

Michigan Judicial Institute Page 1

Determine/ModifyInterstateChild-

CustodyDisputeChecklist(Preliminary

Matters)

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

(UCCJEA), MCL 722.1101 et seq., prescribes the court’s powers and duties

in a child-custody proceeding that involves this state and a proceeding or

party outside of this state. An Indian tribe and foreign country must be

treated as a state of the United States for purposes of the UCCJEA. See

MCL 722.1104(2); MCL 722.1105(1). For a checklist specific to

enforcement of an interstate, international, or tribal child-custody

determination, refer to the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Request for

Enforcement of Child-Custody Determination Checklist (Preliminary Matters)

and Request for Enforcement of Child-Custody Determination Checklist

(Hearing).

The first assessment the court must make is to determine whether a child

custody proceeding has been commenced in another jurisdiction.

For purposes of the UCCJEA, a child-custody proceeding is defined in MCL

722.1102(d).

For purposes of the UCCJEA, a child-custody determination is defined in

MCL 722.1102(c).

“Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is

neither necessary nor sufficient to make a child-custody determination.”

MCL 722.1201(3).

To make sure all the proper procedures have been followed leading up to

a child-custody hearing, the court should make the following inquiries

and determinations:

 Determine whether a child custody order exists in any

jurisdiction.

Last Updated 8/28/23 Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters)

Page 2 Michigan Judicial Institute

Determine whether either party or the child still live in that

state. If so, Michigan may enforce but does not likely have

jurisdiction to modify the order. See White v Harrison-White,

280 Mich App 383 (2008).

 If there is a prior custody order and the court that issued the

order had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, a Michigan

court must give the other state’s order full faith and credit

under the US Constitution.

US Const, art IV, § 1. The

jurisdiction of that state remains until a court of this state or

another state obtains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. See

MCL 722.1202.

 If there is no prior custody order or the court that issued the

initial child-custody determination lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction, then Michigan has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA

if:

a petition has been filed that requests an initial custody

determination and

 Michigan is the home state

of the child on the date

the proceeding is commenced; OR

 Michigan is the home state of the child within 6

months before the proceeding was commenced and

the child is absent from Michigan but a parent/person

acting as a parent lives in Michigan;

 a court of another state does not have jurisdiction

under MCL 722.1201(1)(a), or a court of the child’s

home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction

Ensure the case is not excluded from UCCJEA proceedings because the case is an adoption proceeding, or

the case pertains to authorizing emergency medical care for the child, MCL 722.1103. Determine whether

the child is an Indian child OR or whether the court has reason to believe the child is an Indian child. If so,

ensure the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901 et seq., and the Michigan Indian

Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), MCL 712B.1 et seq, are being followed. MCL 722.1104(1).

A Michigan trial court is not required to afford full faith and credit to another state’s child-custody order

when the other state lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case under the UCCJEA. Nock v Miranda-

Bermudez, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2023) (California lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a custody

dispute when the defendant filed for custody in California more than six months after the plaintiff moved

the children with her to Michigan, making Michigan the home state for purposes of the UCCJEA and

authorizing the Michigan trial court to issue orders concerning custody of the parties’ children).

For purposes of the UCCJEA, home state is defined in MCL 722.1102(g).

“[T]he focus of the UCCJEA concerns a child’s actual presence [in a location], not his or her intent to

remain [in that location].” Ramamoorthi v Ramamoorthi, 323 Mich App 324, 339 (2018) (“regardless of

whether the children properly could be considered residents of Michigan because they intended to return

there, the trial court erred when it found that it had jurisdiction over the parties’ custody dispute under

the UCCJEA” because “the children had ‘lived with’ a parent in India for more than six consecutive months

. . . immediately before [the] plaintiff filed [the] action” and thus India, not Michigan, “qualifie[d] as the

children’s home state [as defined in MCL 722.1102(g)] under the UCCJEA.”).

Michigan Judicial Institute Page 3

Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters) Last Updated 8/28/23

because Michigan is the more appropriate forum

under MCL 722.1207 (inconvenient forum) or MCL

722.1208 (unjustifiable conduct), and the court finds

that:

 the child and parents, or the child and one parent/

person acting as a parent has a significant

connection with Michigan

; OR

 no other court has jurisdiction or all other courts with

jurisdiction have declined to exercise it because

Michigan is the more appropriate forum under MCL

722.1207 (inconvenient forum) or MCL 722.1208

(unjustifiable conduct). MCL 722.1201(1).

temporary emergency jurisdiction exists because a child is

present in Michigan and

 has been abandoned (left without provision for

reasonable and necessary care or supervision), OR

 needs protection that is necessary and emergent

because the child or the child’s sibling or parent is

subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or

abuse, see MCL 722.1204(1).

 A court of this state that has made a child-custody

determination consistent with MCL 722.1201 or MCL 722.1203

has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child-custody

determination until either of the following occurs:

a court of this state determines that neither the child, nor

the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting

as a parent have a significant connection with this state and

that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state

concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and

personal relationships.

a court of this state or a court of another state determines

that neither the child, nor a parent of the child, nor a

person acting as the child’s parent presently resides in this

state. MCL 722.1202(1).

”For Michigan to obtain ‘significant connections’ jurisdiction, there must be no other state with

jurisdiction as the home state, and the court must find that: (1) the child and the child’s parents have a

significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence, and (2) substantial evidence is

available in this state addressing the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.”

Veneskey v Sulier, 338 Mich App 539, 547 (2021).

“MCL 722.1204(1) provides . . . for emergency jurisdiction under certain circumstances, but . . . requires

that a child be ‘present in this state’ for it to apply.” Ramamoorthi v Ramamoorthi, 323 Mich App 324, 336

(2018).

Last Updated 8/28/23 Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters)

Page 4 Michigan Judicial Institute

 A court of this state that has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

under MCL 722.1202 may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if

the court determines that it is an inconvenient forum under

MCL 722.1207. MCL 722.1202(2).

 A court of this state that has made a child-custody

determination and that does not have exclusive, continuing

jurisdiction under MCL 722.1202 may modify that child-

custody determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an

initial child-custody determination under MCL 722.1201. MCL

722.1202(3).

 If a petition has been filed that requests a modification to an

out-of-state custody/parenting time order and it appears that

the issuing state has lost jurisdiction, then:

Michigan has jurisdiction necessary to make an initial

child-custody determination if Michigan determines it is

the home state

or has a significant connection to the child

and parent(s), and either:

 the court of the other state determines it no longer has

continuing, exclusive jurisdiction or that a Michigan

court would be a more convenient forum; OR

 a Michigan court or a court of the other state

determines that neither the child, nor a parent of the

child, nor a person acting as a parent presently

resides in the other state. MCL 722.1203.

 Determine whether jurisdiction is proper, MCL 722.1201. If

jurisdiction is proper, determine whether it may be exercised:

EXERCISE jurisdiction if no child-custody proceeding was

commenced in another state at the time this proceeding

was commenced. MCL 722.1206(1).

EXERCISE jurisdiction if a child-custody proceeding was

commenced in another state at the time this proceeding

was commenced, but the proceeding was subsequently

terminated or has been stayed by the other court because

Michigan is a more convenient forum. MCL 722.1206(1).

EXERCISE temporary emergency jurisdiction (the child is

in Michigan and is abandoned or needs protection that is

necessary and emergent because the child or the child’s

sibling or parent is subjected to or threatened with

mistreatment or abuse) until the court with proper

For purposes of the UCCJEA, home state is defined in MCL 722.1101(g).

Michigan Judicial Institute Page 5

Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters) Last Updated 8/28/23

jurisdiction under MCL 722.1201-MCL 722.1203 exercises

same. MCL 722.1204(1);

MCL 722.1206(1).

DECLINE jurisdiction if jurisdiction exists only because the

person invoking it has engaged in unjustifiable conduct,

provide a remedy (if desired) to ensure the safety of the

child and prevent repetition of the unjustifiable conduct,

and assess the party with necessary and reasonable

expenses

(unless party shows assessment to be clearly

inappropriate). MCL 722.1208.

EXERCISE jurisdiction despite the unjustifiable conduct IF:

 Parents/all persons acting as parents have acquiesced

to the exercise of jurisdiction.

 The other state’s court (with jurisdiction) has

determined Michigan a more appropriate forum.

 No other state’s court has jurisdiction. MCL

722.1208(1)(a)-(c).

DECLINE jurisdiction if the court determines it is an

inconvenient forum under the circumstances and a court of

another state is a more appropriate forum. MCL

722.1202(2); MCL 722.1207(1). If the question of

inconvenient forum is raised by a party, the court’s own

motion, or by another state, the court should:

 determine whether it is appropriate for a court of

another state to exercise jurisdiction by allowing the

parties to submit information and by considering all

relevant facts, including:

whether domestic violence has occurred and is

likely to continue in the future and which state

could best protect the parties and the child.

the length of time the child has resided outside

this state.

the distance between the court in this state and the

court in the state that would assume jurisdiction.

“MCL 722.1204(1) provides . . . for emergency jurisdiction under certain circumstances, but . . . requires

that a child be ‘present in this state’ for it to apply.” Ramamoorthi v Ramamoorthi, 323 Mich App 324, 336

(2018).

Assessment of necessary and reasonable expenses includes “costs, communication expenses, attorney

fees, investigative fees, witness expenses, travel expenses, and child care expenses during the course of

the proceedings[.]” MCL 722.1208(3). Note, however, that the court may not “assess fees, costs, or

expenses against this state unless authorized by law other than this act.” Id.

Last Updated 8/28/23 Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters)

Page 6 Michigan Judicial Institute

the parties’ relative financial circumstances.

an agreement by the parties as to which state

should assume jurisdiction.

the nature and location of the evidence required to

resolve the pending litigation, including the

childʹs testimony.

the ability of the court of each state to decide the

issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary

to present the evidence.

the familiarity of the court of each state with the

facts and issues of the pending litigation. MCL

722.1207(2). Note that these factors “are not an

exclusive list.” Veneskey, 338 Mich App at 549, 550

n 7.

 if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum

and another state is a more appropriate forum,

STAY the proceedings on the condition that the

child-custody proceeding be promptly

commenced in another designated state, and

impose any other condition that is just and proper.

MCL 722.1207(3).

may DECLINE jurisdiction if the child-custody

determination is incidental to an action for divorce or

another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over

the divorce or other proceeding. MCL 722.1207(4).

 If a party’s presence is desired for a custody/modification/

enforcement hearing, the court may:

if the party is in Michigan: order the party to appear, with

or without the child. MCL 722.1210(1).

if the party is outside of Michigan: order that notice to the

party include a statement directing the party to appear

personally, with or without the child, and declare failure to

appear may result in a decision adverse to the party. MCL

722.1210(2).

 May require another party to pay reasonable and

necessary travel and other expenses for the out-of-

state party’s appearance. MCL 722.1210(4).

if the party is the child who is in Michigan and is under the

physical custody or control of another person:

order the

Michigan Judicial Institute Page 7

Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters) Last Updated 8/28/23

person to appear physically with the child. MCL

722.1210(1).

enter any order necessary to ensure the safety of the child

or of a person ordered to appear. MCL 722.1210(3).

 Communication MAY be made with the court of another state

concerning the proceedings. MCL 722.1110(1).

Promptly notify the parties of the communication (unless

the communication pertained to schedules, calendars,

court records, and similar matters). MCL 722.1110(2); MCL

722.1110(3).

Allow the parties to participate in the communication OR

permit the parties to present facts and legal arguments

before a decision on jurisdiction is made. MCL 722.1110(2).

Record

of the communication MUST be made and the

parties MUST be granted access to the record (unless the

communication pertained to schedules, calendars, court

records, and similar matters). MCL 722.1110(3); MCL

722.1110(4).

 Communication MUST be made with the court of another state

if:

the court has temporary emergency jurisdiction and has

been asked to make a child-custody determination under a

temporary emergency jurisdiction AND there is a child-

custody proceeding that has been commenced in or made

by a court of a state having jurisdiction to issue an initial

child-custody determination or modify an out-of-state

child-custody determination. MCL 722.1204(4).

 The court must immediately communicate with the

court of the other state to resolve the emergency,

protect the safety of the parties and the child, and

determine a period for the duration of the temporary

order.

MCL 722.1204(4).

For purposes of the UCCJEA, person is defined in MCL 722.1102(l).

For purposes of MCL 722.1110, record is defined in MCL 722.1110(5).

A Michigan court must engage in this communication before the Michigan court may decline to exercise

jurisdiction over the child. In re J Thornhill, ___ Mich ___, ___ (2023). Without having communicated with

another state involved with a child’s custody before deciding against exercising temporary emergency

jurisdiction, “the court lacked sufficient knowledge to make a meaningful determination as to whether to

exercise emergency jurisdiction in light of the abuse in Michigan.” Id. at ___. Specifically, the Michigan

court “did not know whether the emergency was over or ongoing [and it] did not know . . . whether [the

other state’s] courts intend[ed] to exercise jurisdiction over the minor child in light of the abuse in

Michigan or whether they believe[d] that Michigan [was] the more appropriate forum for any

proceedings.” Id. at ___.

Last Updated 8/28/23 Determine/Modify Interstate Child-Custody Dispute Checklist (Preliminary Matters)

Page 8 Michigan Judicial Institute

at the time of the commencement of proceedings, the court

determines that a child-custody proceeding has been

commenced in a court in another state, the court must STAY

its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other

state. MCL 722.1206(2).

 DISMISS the child-custody proceeding IF it is

determined that this court is not the appropriate

forum.

 Hold a child-custody hearing.

If a question of the existence or exercise of jurisdiction under the

UCCJEA is raised, on a party’s request, the question MUST be given

priority on the court calendar and handled expeditiously. MCL

722.1107.

For court forms related to domestic relations actions, see the One Court

of Justice website.

For additional domestic relations resources, see the Friend of the Court

Bureau website.