4.5Interstate Cases

This section provides general guidance as to when a Michigan court may exercise jurisdiction in a child protective proceeding under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), MCL 722.1101 et seq.

The UCCJEA 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.¹ The UCCJEA does not apply to proceedings involving adoption or the authorization of emergency medical care for a child. MCL 722.1103.²

Note: The UCCJEA contains provisions regarding filing and registering a state’s custody decrees, judgments, and orders; communication between courts of different states; petition requirements; notice and service of process; evidence; and enforcement of another state’s decree, judgment, or order.

Subchapter 3.200 of the Michigan Court Rules, which governs domestic relations actions, applies to actions for custody or parenting time under the UCCJEA; the subchapter also applies to an expedited proceeding to register a foreign judgment or order under the UCCJEA, and to any ancillary or subsequent proceedings related to custody, parenting time, or support. MCR 3.201(A).

The UCCJEA defines a child custody proceeding as “a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, or parenting time with respect to a child is an issue.” MCL 722.1102(d). Child custody proceedings include cases involving:

(1) divorce, separate maintenance, and separation;

(2) neglect, abuse, and dependency;

(3) guardianship matters;

(4) paternity and termination of parental rights; and

(5) protection from domestic violence. MCL 722.1102(d).

An interstate proceeding involving an Indian child is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA). MCL 722.1104(1). See Chapter 19. However, Indian tribes of other states are treated as states for purposes of the UCCJEA. MCL 722.1104(2). An Indian tribe’s custody determination must be recognized and enforced under the UCCJEA if it was made in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA. MCL 722.1104(3).

Note: Subject to its provisions, MCR 2.615 recognizes tribal court judgments as having the same effect as other judicial acts in any other Michigan court. MCR 2.615(A). However, MCR 2.615(D) provides that “[MCR 2.615] does not apply to judgments or orders that federal law requires be given full faith and credit.” MCR 2.615(D).

For purposes of child protective proceedings, a Michigan court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction over a child. A Michigan court obtains temporary emergency jurisdiction when the child is present in this state and:

(1) The child has been abandoned; or

(2) The child, the child’s sibling, or the child’s parent is being mistreated or abused or being threatened with mistreatment or abuse. MCL 722.1204(1).

MCL 722.1204(1) “requires that a child be ‘present in this state’ for it to apply.” Ramamoorthi v Ramamoorthi, 323 Mich App 324, 336 (2018) (because the children were not present in Michigan at the time the custody dispute commenced, MCL 722.1204(1) was not applicable).

A Michigan court may issue an order to take a child into custody if it appears likely that a child will suffer imminent physical harm or will be removed from the state. MCL 722.1310(1). If a proceeding has been commenced in or a custody determination has been made by another state’s court, a Michigan court’s order must specify a time period during which it will remain in effect. MCL 722.1204(3). The time period must be adequate to allow a person to seek an order from the other state’s court. Id. In such circumstances, the Michigan court must immediately communicate with a court in the other state in order 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).

A Michigan court must engage in this communication with the other involved state’s court 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 ___.

If there is no previous child custody determination or no commencement of a child custody proceeding, entry of a court’s order during the temporary emergency will remain in effect until entry of an order by another court having jurisdiction. MCL 722.1204(2). If a child-custody proceeding has not been, and is not, commenced in another state’s court with jurisdiction over the matter, the determination made by the Michigan court during the temporary emergency becomes the final child-custody determination, if the Michigan court intends its determination to be final and Michigan becomes the child’s home state. Id.