UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Act 195 of 2001
722.1206 Commencement of out-of-state proceeding; jurisdiction; communication; dismissal of proceeding by in-state court; modification.
Sec. 206.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this act, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under section 207.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, before hearing a child-custody proceeding, a court of this state shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties as required by section 209. If the court determines that, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this act, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this act does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the child-custody proceeding.
(3) In a proceeding to modify a child-custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the child-custody determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child-custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may do any of the following:
(a) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement.
(b) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement.
(c) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
History: 2001, Act 195, Eff. Apr. 1, 2002
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
Fisher v. Belcher, 713 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Fisher v. Belcher, 713 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “Specifically, MCL 722.1206 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been…”
Atchison v. Atchison, 664 N.W.2d 249 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “8 Furthermore, plaintiffs reliance on MCL 722.1206, for the proposition that the trial court was required to contact the Ontario court, is misplaced.”
Nash v. Salter, 760 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “MCL 722.1206, which governs simultaneous proceedings, provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement[ 3 ] of the proceeding, a…”
Jamil v. Jahan, 760 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “On the record, the Michigan court stated that because there was a prior custody order in Virginia within the meaning of MCL 722.1206, Virginia had jurisdiction to amend the custody order.”
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“” MCL 722.1206(1); see also Fisher, 269 Mich App at 255 .”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Although the Family Court in Hyderabad may not have exactly followed the procedures in MCL 722.1206, it was located in the child's home state of India and had jurisdiction to modify the child-custody determination.”
Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 11× “As a result, the trial court should have first looked to MCL 722.1206, which governs simultaneous child-custody proceedings and states, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 722.”
Katharine Marie Sprague v. Robert Franklin Houston Bray (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “1206 In the lower court, the referee initially concluded that he could not proceed with defendant’s request for a modification of the interim consent order without an order from Delaware explicitly relinquishing its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under MCL 722.”
Paul McGrath v. Julia Bressette (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “MCL 722.1206 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 722.”
in Re E Padelsky Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1 MCL 722.1206 governs simultaneous child-custody proceedings, and provides as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a…”
Guardianship of a Minor (Mass. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Accord Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206 . This means that "[o]nce a State exercises jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of the [PKPA], no other State may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the custody dispute, .”
Allison Smith v. Joshua Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “1201(1); MCL 722.1206. This still leaves the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider custody matters concerning AS.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206(1) — 11 cases
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“” MCL 722.1206(1); see also Fisher, 269 Mich App at 255 .”
Fisher v. Belcher, 713 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Specifically, MCL 722.1206 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been…”
Nash v. Salter, 760 N.W.2d 612 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“MCL 722.1206, which governs simultaneous proceedings, provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement[ 3 ] of the proceeding, a…”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Although the Family Court in Hyderabad may not have exactly followed the procedures in MCL 722.1206, it was located in the child's home state of India and had jurisdiction to modify the child-custody determination.”
Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“As a result, the trial court should have first looked to MCL 722.1206, which governs simultaneous child-custody proceedings and states, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206(1)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206(2) — 5 cases
Fisher v. Belcher, 713 N.W.2d 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“Specifically, MCL 722.1206 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been…”
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Although the Family Court in Hyderabad may not have exactly followed the procedures in MCL 722.1206, it was located in the child's home state of India and had jurisdiction to modify the child-custody determination.”
Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“As a result, the trial court should have first looked to MCL 722.1206, which governs simultaneous child-custody proceedings and states, in relevant part, as follows: (1) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 722.”
Allison Smith v. Joshua Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“1201(1); MCL 722.1206. This still leaves the question whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider custody matters concerning AS.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206(3)(a) — 1 case
Jamil v. Jahan, 760 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“On the record, the Michigan court stated that because there was a prior custody order in Virginia within the meaning of MCL 722.1206, Virginia had jurisdiction to amend the custody order.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206(3)(c) — 1 case
Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju, 931 N.W.2d 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Although the Family Court in Hyderabad may not have exactly followed the procedures in MCL 722.1206, it was located in the child's home state of India and had jurisdiction to modify the child-custody determination.”
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.