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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; condition; determination to decline jurisdiction; modification of child-custody determination.

✓ 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


722.1202 Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; condition; determination to decline jurisdiction; modification of child-custody determination.

Sec. 202.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state that has made a child-custody determination consistent with section 201 or 203 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child-custody determination until either of the following occurs:

    (a) A court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and 1 parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

    (b) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that neither the child, nor a parent of the child, nor a person acting as the child's parent presently resides in this state.

    (2) A court of this state that has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 207.

    (3) A court of this state that has made a child-custody determination and that does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that child-custody determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination under section 201.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 17× “MCL 722.1202, which provides for the retention of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the custody decree, was specifically designed to “rectify conflicting proceedings and orders in child-custody disputes.”
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “1201] and either of the following applies: (a) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under section 202 [MCL 722.1202] or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 207 [MCL 722.”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “[ 6 ] MCL 722.1202 provides that a court that has entered a prior child-custody determination consistently with the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" over the determination.”
Foster v. Wolkowitz, 785 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 2010). “MCL 722.1202(1) and 722.1203(a). 15 MCL 722.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 16× “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 16× “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Breyanka Dean v. Craig Hunter Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 10× “The first condition occurs when a Michigan court “determines that neither the child, nor the child and 1 parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state…”
In re G.B., 2017 Ohio 8418 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 722.1202(1)(b). {¶ 49} Ohio’s statute, R.”
in the Interest of J.P. & A. P., Child. (Tex. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “202 ; see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202 . The UCCJEA gives that court the sole power to decide whether it will continue to exercise that jurisdiction.”
Ariana Rosalie Omaits V Ryan Andrew Zerbe (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “However, MCL 722.1202 contains two alternative subdivisions under which the court may decline to exercise continuing jurisdiction.”
Tina Veneskey v. Michael Keith Sulier (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “1202(3) states that “[a] court of this state that has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 207.”
Rebecca Kay Richardson v. Cody James Snipes (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Under MCL 722.1202, a court that has made a child-custody determination consistent with §§ 201 or 204 has -2- exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child-custody determination until certain conditions occur.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(1) — 11 cases
White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 722.1202, which provides for the retention of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the custody decree, was specifically designed to “rectify conflicting proceedings and orders in child-custody disputes.”
Foster v. Wolkowitz, 785 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 2010). “MCL 722.1202(1) and 722.1203(a). 15 MCL 722.”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “[ 6 ] MCL 722.1202 provides that a court that has entered a prior child-custody determination consistently with the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" over the determination.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(1)(a) — 4 cases
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Breyanka Dean v. Craig Hunter Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “The first condition occurs when a Michigan court “determines that neither the child, nor the child and 1 parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state…”
Ariana Rosalie Omaits V Ryan Andrew Zerbe (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “However, MCL 722.1202 contains two alternative subdivisions under which the court may decline to exercise continuing jurisdiction.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(1)(b) — 5 cases
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “[ 6 ] MCL 722.1202 provides that a court that has entered a prior child-custody determination consistently with the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" over the determination.”
In re G.B., 2017 Ohio 8418 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “" Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. 722.1202(1)(b). {¶ 49} Ohio’s statute, R.”
Ariana Rosalie Omaits V Ryan Andrew Zerbe (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “However, MCL 722.1202 contains two alternative subdivisions under which the court may decline to exercise continuing jurisdiction.”
Breyanka Dean v. Craig Hunter Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “The first condition occurs when a Michigan court “determines that neither the child, nor the child and 1 parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state…”
Jody S Kraus v. Pare Lynn Gerou (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(2) — 5 cases
White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 722.1202, which provides for the retention of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the custody decree, was specifically designed to “rectify conflicting proceedings and orders in child-custody disputes.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Robert Zalenski v. Sobeira Zalenski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “] MCL 722.1202 of the UCCJEA provides that the state that has entered a prior custody decree has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Paul McGrath v. Julia Bressette (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Foster v. Wolkowitz, 775 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. 2009).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(3) — 2 cases
Jody S Kraus v. Pare Lynn Gerou (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Tina Veneskey v. Michael Keith Sulier (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “1202(3) states that “[a] court of this state that has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 207.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1202(l)(a) — 1 case
White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 722.1202, which provides for the retention of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction for the state that entered the custody decree, was specifically designed to “rectify conflicting proceedings and orders in child-custody disputes.”
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.