WAYNE COUNTY CHILD CUSTODY INTRASTATE DISPUTES

Interstate WAYNE COUNTY custody disputes.

Interstate custody disputes are governed by the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).

There are three steps for determining whether to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA:

The Michigan court ascertains whether it has jurisdiction over the case.

It determines if another state also has jurisdiction.

If more than one state has jurisdiction, the court must determine which state should decide the custody dispute.

Enforcement. If another state’s custody order substantially conforms to the UCCJEA, it must be recognized and enforced in Michigan.

Modification. A Michigan court will not modify another state’s custody decree unless the Michigan court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination and either (1) the court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that a Michigan court would be a more convenient forum or (2) neither the child, the child’s parent, nor a person acting as a parent resides in the other state.

Determining jurisdiction. A Michigan court has jurisdiction over a custody dispute if one of the following jurisdictional bases is met:

Home state jurisdiction. Either the child and at least one parent have resided in Michigan for at least six consecutive months (or since birth if the child is less than six months old) or the child is absent from Michigan, but Michigan was the child’s home state within six months before the proceedings began, and a parent continues to live in Michigan.

Significant connection jurisdiction. No other state has home state jurisdiction, the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with Michigan and there is substantial evidence available in Michigan concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. If a court exerts jurisdiction under this basis without deferring to the child’s home state, its order will not be afforded full faith and credit.

Temporary emergency jurisdiction. The child is present in Michigan and there is an emergency requiring the court to act. There is an emergency if the child has been abandoned or it is necessary to protect a child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, “is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”

Last resort jurisdiction. No other state has jurisdiction or another state with jurisdiction has declined to exercise it.

Deferring jurisdiction. Michigan will not exercise jurisdiction if a custody proceeding has been commenced in another state when the petition is filed.

If the other state stays proceedings because Michigan is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons, or if an emergency requires temporary action, Michigan may exercise jurisdiction.
In an emergency, the court must communicate with the other state’s court with pending jurisdiction to avoid a problem with the prohibition on exercising jurisdiction when there is a pending proceeding.

Declining jurisdiction. A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction even after determining it has jurisdiction.

Considerations include
whether domestic violence has occurred,
the length of time the child has resided outside Michigan,
the distance between the Michigan court and the court in the state that would assume

jurisdiction,

the parties’ relative financial circumstances, and

the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation.

International custody disputes.

The general policies of the UCCJEA extend to international custody disputes. Foreign custody judgments rendered by legal institutions and appropriate authorities are recognized and enforced in Michigan under the same policies applied to other states.

The Hague Convention. The Hague Convention applies to disputes between parties from signatory nations in cases where a child is wrongfully removed or retained by the noncustodial parent as well as in cases where the custodial parent refuses to grant visitation or access rights.

A civil action is filed where the child is located at the time of filing.

State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

A petitioner seeking the return of a child has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was wrongfully removed or retained or that visitation rights are being wrongfully denied. The standard is not the best interests of the child.

A finding of wrongful retention requires the return of the child to the other country, where any remaining custody issue is decided.

There are several exceptions to the mandatory return of the child that the respondent can establish,