Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.21
Child custody act; short title.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970
Act 91 of 1970
722.21 Child custody act; short title.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "child custody act of 1970".
History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 415
cases (139 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013)
“This holding is also consistent with the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., itself, which entrusts courts with making custody determinations in a child’s best interests.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2010)
“Under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., "all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a…”
Demski v. Petlick (2015)
“Moreover, the trial court’s ex parte consideration of expert testimony and its failure to hold a separate evidentiary hearing to consider the child’s best interests contravened the Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq., mandating reversal of its joint legal custody and…”
Hunter v. Hunter (2009)
“A parent cannot circumvent these proceedings by seeking custody under the Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq. See ante at 703-04. I do not agree with the majority that the constitutional presumption in favor of fit parents imbues the presumption in MCL 722.”
Van v. Zahorik (1999)
“[1] MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq.”
Frame v. Nehls (1996)
“§ 722.21 et seq. ; M.S.A. § 25.312(1) et seq.”
Killingbeck v. Killingbeck (2006)
“Thus, the acknowledgement of parentage gave Killingbeck status as a parent, eligible to pursue parenting time under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq. In Van, the Supreme Court denied parental status under that act to a man who was not a biological father because he…”
Smith v. Smith (1989)
“If that were true, the analysis would have to focus heavily, as that of the Chief Justice in some respects does, upon the action of the Legislature in amending in 1980 the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq.”
In re Olive/Metts Minors (2012)
“It is, therefore, incumbent on the trial court to view each child individually when determining whether termination of parental rights is in that child’s best interests.”
Kaiser v. Schreiber (2003)
“§ 722.21 et seq. Girard addresses this only briefly and relies on this Court's decision in Pizana v.”
In Re Clausen (1993)
“[33] That chapter governs juveniles and the juvenile division of the probate court and permits termination of parental rights for abuse and neglect.”
In Re HRC (2009)
“The Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq., permits the use of in camera interviews, but for a different reason: When the court makes its best interests determination, it is well settled that it may interview the children in camera limited to determining their parental…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.21(1)(a) — 1 case
Weaver v. Giffels (2016)
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.21(1)(c) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.21(4)(e) — 1 case
Rana Radha v. Ahmed Mohammed (2025)
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.