Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 722 / Act 195 of 2001
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1105 (2026)

Child-custody law or determination of foreign country.

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

UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT


Act 195 of 2001


722.1105 Child-custody law or determination of foreign country.

Sec. 105.

    (1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as a state of the United States for the purposes of applying articles 1 and 2.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a child-custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this act must be recognized and enforced under article 3.

    (3) A court of this state need not apply this act if the child-custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.

History: 2001, Act 195, Eff. Apr. 1, 2002

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “MCL 722.1105(1). 4 Once a court of another state has rendered a child-custody determination, a Michigan court shall not modify this order, MCL 722.”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi, 918 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Defendant is correct that India may qualify as a home state under MCL 722.1105, which provides: (1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as a state of the United States for the purposes of applying [ MCL 722.”
Gagnon v. Glowacki, 815 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “” Brausch v Brausch, 283 Mich App 339, 354 ; 770 NW2d 77 (2009); see also MCL 722.1105; Atchison v Atchison, 256 Mich App 531, 536-537 ; 664 NW2d 249 (2003).”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “" MCL 722.1105(1). MCL 722.1102(g) provides that a child's "home state" is "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding.”
Cornelia S Lorenz v. Benjamin Lorenz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “[MCL 722.1105 (emphasis added).] Benjamin argues that the German custody determination was not made “under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards” of the UCCJEA.”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Defendant is correct that India may qualify as a home state under MCL 722.1105, which provides: (1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as a state of the United States for the purposes of applying [MCL 722.”
Jose Guardalupe Hernandez v. Victoria Mayoral-Martinez (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “1201(1)(a), which provides that a court can assert jurisdiction when Michigan is the child’s home state or was the home state within six months of the commencement of the proceedings.”
Rebekah Ann Kortman v. Paul Evert Kortman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “The trial court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the UCCJEA did not apply because the parties were merely on an extended vacation in Mexico and did not plan to stay.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1105(1) — 4 cases
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 722.1105(1). 4 Once a court of another state has rendered a child-custody determination, a Michigan court shall not modify this order, MCL 722.”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “" MCL 722.1105(1). MCL 722.1102(g) provides that a child's "home state" is "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding.”
Jose Guardalupe Hernandez v. Victoria Mayoral-Martinez (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “1201(1)(a), which provides that a court can assert jurisdiction when Michigan is the child’s home state or was the home state within six months of the commencement of the proceedings.”
Rebekah Ann Kortman v. Paul Evert Kortman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “The trial court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the UCCJEA did not apply because the parties were merely on an extended vacation in Mexico and did not plan to stay.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1105(2) — 3 cases
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 722.1105(1). 4 Once a court of another state has rendered a child-custody determination, a Michigan court shall not modify this order, MCL 722.”
Cornelia S Lorenz v. Benjamin Lorenz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “[MCL 722.1105 (emphasis added).] Benjamin argues that the German custody determination was not made “under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards” of the UCCJEA.”
Jose Guardalupe Hernandez v. Victoria Mayoral-Martinez (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “1201(1)(a), which provides that a court can assert jurisdiction when Michigan is the child’s home state or was the home state within six months of the commencement of the proceedings.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1105(3) — 4 cases
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 722.1105(1). 4 Once a court of another state has rendered a child-custody determination, a Michigan court shall not modify this order, MCL 722.”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi, 918 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant is correct that India may qualify as a home state under MCL 722.1105, which provides: (1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as a state of the United States for the purposes of applying [ MCL 722.”
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Defendant is correct that India may qualify as a home state under MCL 722.1105, which provides: (1) A court of this state shall treat a foreign country as a state of the United States for the purposes of applying [MCL 722.”
Cornelia S Lorenz v. Benjamin Lorenz (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “[MCL 722.1105 (emphasis added).] Benjamin argues that the German custody determination was not made “under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards” of the UCCJEA.”
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.