ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE
Act 386 of 1998
700.5101 General definitions.
Sec. 5101.
As used in parts 1 to 4 of this article:
(a) "Best interests of the minor" means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court:
(i) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.
(ii) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue educating and raising the child in the child's religion or creed, if any.
(iii) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of medical care, and other material needs.
(iv) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(v) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home.
(vi) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(vii) The mental and physical health of the parties involved.
(viii) The child's home, school, and community record.
(ix) The child's reasonable preference, if the court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference.
(x) The party's willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and his or her parent or parents.
(xi) Domestic violence regardless of whether the violence is directed against or witnessed by the child.
(xii) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular dispute regarding termination of a guardianship, removal of a guardian, or parenting time.
(b) "Claim" includes, in respect to a protected individual, a liability of the protected individual, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise, and a liability of the estate that arises at or after the appointment of a conservator, including expenses of administration.
(c) "Conservator" includes, but is not limited to, a limited conservator described in section 5419(1).
(d) "Visitor" means an individual appointed in a guardianship or protective proceeding who is trained in law, nursing, or social work, is an officer, employee, or special appointee of the court, and has no personal interest in the proceeding.
History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 54, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000
PopularName Notes:
EPIC
Notes of Decisions
in Re Conservatorship of Rhea Brody, 909 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“5401, which, in relevant part, provides: *337 (3) The court may appoint a conservator or make another protective order in relation to an individual's estate and affairs if the court determines both of the following: (a) The individual is unable to manage property and business…”
In Re Guardianship of Ab (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 13× “Appellee also argued that consideration of the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101 weighed in favor of the minor guardianship being terminated.”
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
20221215_C362398_40_362398.Opn.Ord.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “The Montcalm DHHS report covered all the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101(a), which states: “Best interests of the minor” means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court: (i) The love, affection, and other emotional ties…”
In Re Guardianship of Lmw (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “DISCUSSION Petitioner contends that the probate court abused its discretion by denying his petition to modify LMW’s guardianship to require respondents to permit him video conferencing contact with LMW. Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by failing to make findings…”
In Re Guardianship of Ac (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “” The trial court then went through each -2- of the best-interests factors outlined in MCL 700.5101(a). The court found that respondent and AC were bonded, that respondent could provide for AC’s needs, and that respondent’s housing was “stable and satisfactory.”
In Re Guardianship of Jcm (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “MCL 700.5101(a). This Court has stated that because the Child Custody Act and the guardianship statutes share the same purpose of promoting the best interests of children, “the two statutes may be interpreted consistent with each other, or in pari materia.”
In Re Jcm Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “When this case returned to this Court after that first remand, this Court again concluded that the trial court had not adequately articulated its findings of fact and conclusions regarding the relevant best-interest factors found in MCL 700.5101(a), and we remanded for a second…”
In Re Jcm Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “SPECIFIC FINDINGS PURSUANT [SIC] MCL 700.5101(A) (i) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.”
In Re Richard Lee Conrad (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“5401(1), the court “may appoint a conservator or make another protective order for cause” in relation to an individual’s estate and affairs if the court determines that both of the following criteria are satisfied: (a) The individual is unable to manage property and business…”
In Re Guardianship of Luke Tarvis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. [MCL 722.23.] 12 We note the factors delineated for determining child custody essentially parallel the best interests factors examined for purposes of deciding a guardianship.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(A) — 1 case
In Re Jcm Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“SPECIFIC FINDINGS PURSUANT [SIC] MCL 700.5101(A) (i) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a) — 7 cases
20221215_C362398_40_362398.Opn.Ord.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“The Montcalm DHHS report covered all the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101(a), which states: “Best interests of the minor” means the sum total of the following factors to be considered, evaluated, and determined by the court: (i) The love, affection, and other emotional ties…”
In Re Guardianship of Lmw (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“DISCUSSION Petitioner contends that the probate court abused its discretion by denying his petition to modify LMW’s guardianship to require respondents to permit him video conferencing contact with LMW. Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by failing to make findings…”
In Re Guardianship of Ac (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“” The trial court then went through each -2- of the best-interests factors outlined in MCL 700.5101(a). The court found that respondent and AC were bonded, that respondent could provide for AC’s needs, and that respondent’s housing was “stable and satisfactory.”
In Re Guardianship of Jcm (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“MCL 700.5101(a). This Court has stated that because the Child Custody Act and the guardianship statutes share the same purpose of promoting the best interests of children, “the two statutes may be interpreted consistent with each other, or in pari materia.”
In Re Jcm Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“When this case returned to this Court after that first remand, this Court again concluded that the trial court had not adequately articulated its findings of fact and conclusions regarding the relevant best-interest factors found in MCL 700.5101(a), and we remanded for a second…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(i) — 4 cases
In Re Guardianship of Ab (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Appellee also argued that consideration of the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101 weighed in favor of the minor guardianship being terminated.”
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
In Re Guardianship of Luke Tarvis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“(l) Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. [MCL 722.23.] 12 We note the factors delineated for determining child custody essentially parallel the best interests factors examined for purposes of deciding a guardianship.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(ii) — 1 case
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(iii) — 1 case
In Re Guardianship of Ab (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Appellee also argued that consideration of the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101 weighed in favor of the minor guardianship being terminated.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(iv) — 1 case
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(v) — 2 cases
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
In Re Guardianship of Ab (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Appellee also argued that consideration of the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101 weighed in favor of the minor guardianship being terminated.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(vi) — 1 case
In Re Guardianship of Ab (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Appellee also argued that consideration of the best-interest factors of MCL 700.5101 weighed in favor of the minor guardianship being terminated.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(a)(xii) — 1 case
in Re Guardianship of Wenzlick, Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“Indeed, these same best-interest factors are codified in EPIC under MCL 700.5101 and are applicable for “parts 1 to 4” of article V; and part 2 of article V covers guardians of minors.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.5101(d) — 1 case
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.