• Full Website
Menu

Pinnacle Family Law Blog

"Strength, knowledge, and compassion when it matters most."
  • Full Website

"HOME STATE" PRIORITY UNDER THE UCCJEA

November 24, 2015

The UCCJEA governs the procedures for resolving child custody disputes when one or both parents reside outside of Michigan. It also governs enforcement of out-of-state custody decrees in Michigan and sets forth the circumstances under which modification of a foreign court order is permitted. The UCCJEA gives jurisdictional priority and exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to the home state of the child as defined in the act.

The UCCJEA imposes specific pleading requirements. Each party in a child custody proceeding must, in its first pleading or in an attached sworn statement, provide information under oath about the child’s present address, the places the child has lived during the last five years, the names and present addresses of the persons with whom the child has lived during that period, and the existence of other child custody proceedings. MCL 722.1209(1). See SCAO form MC 416, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act Affidavit. If a party alleges that a party’s or child’s health, safety, or liberty would be put at risk by the disclosure of identifying information, the court will seal and not disclose that information to the other party or the public unless the court orders the disclosure after a hearing. MCL 722.1209(5).

Under the UCCJEA, a Michigan court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under the following conditions:

(a) [Michigan] is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.

(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 207 or 208, and the court finds both of the following:

(i) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 1 parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.

(ii) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

(c) All courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine there custody of the child under section 207 or 208.

(d) No court of another state would have jurisdiction under subdivision (a), (b), or (c).

Tags Interstate Issues, Child Custody
UNDERSTANDING THE UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT - How to get your support from one state to the next. →

Latest & Greatest

You must select a collection to display.

Fresh Tweets


This is a block field

You can put any content in here.

Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Maecenas sed diam eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper.

Powered by Squarespace