Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.507a (2026)

Making report, recommendation, and supporting documents available to attorneys and parties; informing parties in child custody dispute or guardian concerning preference expressed by child; availability of information.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

FRIEND OF THE COURT ACT


Act 294 of 1982


552.507a Making report, recommendation, and supporting documents available to attorneys and parties; informing parties in child custody dispute or guardian concerning preference expressed by child; availability of information.

Sec. 7a.

    (1) A copy of each report, recommendation, and any supporting documents or a summary of supporting documents prepared or used by the friend of the court or an employee of the office shall be made available to the attorney for each party and to each of the parties before the court takes any action on a recommendation by the office.

    (2) In a child custody dispute, the parties shall be informed of whether a custody preference expressed by the child was considered, evaluated, and determined by the judge, referee, or employee of the friend of the court. The parties shall not be informed of the preference expressed by the child under section 3 of the child custody act of 1970, 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.23.

    (3) If a guardian is appointed for a child, the guardian shall be informed whether a custody preference expressed by the child was considered, evaluated, and determined by the judge, referee, or employee of the friend of the court, and, if so, the preference expressed.

    (4) The manner and time within which the information required under this section is made available shall be determined by the Michigan court rules.

History: Add. 2004, Act 210, Eff. Oct. 1, 2004

PopularName Notes:

Friend of the Court
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: Thomas J O'Brien Jr v. Ann Marie D'Annunzio (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Terri Denise Patterson v. William James Patterson III (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Nonetheless, we believe it incumbent on us to note that the trial judge that presided over the custody hearing informed the parties of the children’s preference in violation of MCL 552.507a(2) (“The parties shall not be informed of the preference expressed by the child under .”
Thomas J O'Brien Jr v. Ann Marie D'Annunzio (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “[MCL 552.507a(1).] 1 At the time the trial court signed the August 14, 2018 order directing Doan to consult with Popovic, it had no reason to believe that Popovic harbored bias against either party.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.507a(1) — 1 case
Thomas J O'Brien Jr v. Ann Marie D'Annunzio (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “[MCL 552.507a(1).] 1 At the time the trial court signed the August 14, 2018 order directing Doan to consult with Popovic, it had no reason to believe that Popovic harbored bias against either party.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.507a(2) — 1 case
Terri Denise Patterson v. William James Patterson III (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Nonetheless, we believe it incumbent on us to note that the trial judge that presided over the custody hearing informed the parties of the children’s preference in violation of MCL 552.507a(2) (“The parties shall not be informed of the preference expressed by the child under .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.