UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Act 195 of 2001
722.1208 Unjustifiable conduct of parties; decision to decline exercise of jurisdiction; dismissal or stay; expenses.
Sec. 208.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204 or by other law of this state, if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this act because a person invoking the court's jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the court finds 1 or more of the following:
(a) The parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction.
(b) A court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under sections 201 to 203 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under section 207.
(c) No court of another state would have jurisdiction under sections 201 to 203.
(2) If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (1), the court may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including staying the proceeding until a child-custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under sections 201 to 203.
(3) If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise jurisdiction under subsection (1), it shall charge the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court with necessary and reasonable expenses including costs, communication expenses, attorney fees, investigative fees, witness expenses, travel expenses, and child care expenses during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom expenses and fees are sought establishes that the award would be clearly inappropriate. The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against this state unless authorized by law other than this act.
History: 2001, Act 195, Eff. Apr. 1, 2002
Notes of Decisions
Vidyaarthy C Ramamoorthi v. Chinnaiah Ramamoorthi, 918 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “1207 ] or [ MCL 722.1208 ], and the court finds both of the following: ( i ) The child and the child's parents, or the child and at least 1 parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.”
Jeremy Duane Willis v. Christelle Bianco Willis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 7× “The Kalamazoo Circuit Court subsequently entered a written opinion and order dismissing the matter based on the court’s decision to decline exercising jurisdiction over the matter under the UCCJEA.”
Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “1207] or [MCL 722.1208], and the court finds both of the following: (i) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 1 parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.”
Rebekah Ann Kortman v. Paul Evert Kortman (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “1207] or [MCL 722.1208], and the court finds both of the following: (i) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 1 parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.”
Paul McGrath v. Julia Bressette (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “1207 or MCL 722.1208]. (d) No court of another state would have jurisdiction under subdivision (a), (b), or (c).”
Rebecca Kay Richardson v. Cody James Snipes (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “6 But, as defendant acknowledges, the trial court “did not expressly reference MCL 722.1208.” In addition, the trial court made no factual findings with respect to whether plaintiff’s move to Michigan was unjustifiable, noting only that defendant’s pleadings contained such an…”
Lance Richard Winter v. Teri Nicole Brock (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“1207, and MCL 722.1208. Brock next argues that the Arizona trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Winter did not have standing to initiate the custody proceedings in Arizona.”
Jody S Kraus v. Pare Lynn Gerou (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“1204 governs when a court has temporary emergency jurisdiction. It is of no relevance to this appeal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1208(1) — 3 cases
Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“1207] or [MCL 722.1208], and the court finds both of the following: (i) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 1 parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.”
Jeremy Duane Willis v. Christelle Bianco Willis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“The Kalamazoo Circuit Court subsequently entered a written opinion and order dismissing the matter based on the court’s decision to decline exercising jurisdiction over the matter under the UCCJEA.”
Rebecca Kay Richardson v. Cody James Snipes (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“6 But, as defendant acknowledges, the trial court “did not expressly reference MCL 722.1208.” In addition, the trial court made no factual findings with respect to whether plaintiff’s move to Michigan was unjustifiable, noting only that defendant’s pleadings contained such an…”
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.