Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 722 / Act 91 of 1970
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
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


722.22 Definitions.

Sec. 2.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Active duty" means that term as defined in section 101 of the servicemembers civil relief act, 50 USC 511, except that "active duty" includes full-time national guard duty.

    (b) "Agency" means a legally authorized public or private organization, or governmental unit or official, whether of this state or of another state or country, concerned in the welfare of minor children, including a licensed child placement agency.

    (c) "Attorney" means, if appointed to represent a child under this act, an attorney serving as the child's legal advocate in a traditional attorney-client relationship with the child, as governed by the Michigan rules of professional conduct. An attorney defined under this subdivision owes the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and zealous representation of the child's expressed wishes as the attorney would to an adult client.

    (d) "Child" means minor child and children. Subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605b, for purposes of providing support, child includes a child and children who have reached 18 years of age.

    (e) "Deployment" means the movement or mobilization of a servicemember to a location for a period of longer than 60 days and not longer than 540 days under temporary or permanent official orders as follows:

    (i) That are designated as unaccompanied.

    (ii) For which dependent travel is not authorized.

    (iii) That otherwise do not permit the movement of family members to that location.

    (iv) The servicemember is restricted from travel.

    (f) "Grandparent" means a natural or adoptive parent of a child's natural or adoptive parent.

    (g) "Guardian ad litem" means an individual whom the court appoints to assist the court in determining the child's best interests. A guardian ad litem does not need to be an attorney.

    (h) "Lawyer-guardian ad litem" means an attorney appointed under section 4. A lawyer-guardian ad litem represents the child, and has the powers and duties, as set forth in section 4.

    (i) "Parent" means the natural or adoptive parent of a child.

    (j) "State disbursement unit" or "SDU" means the entity established in section 6 of the office of child support act, 1971 PA 174, MCL 400.236.

    (k) "Third person" means an individual other than a parent.

History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 245, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 1990 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 482, Eff. Mar. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 156, Imd. Eff. Nov. 3, 1999 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 9, Imd. Eff. Feb. 14, 2002 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 542, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 2005 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 327, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2005 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 51, Eff. Sept. 7, 2015

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella, 920 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella, 920 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 30× “But, after a remand from this Court, the trial court held that the definition of "parent" contained within MCL 722.22(i) was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.”
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin, 916 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The term deployment is defined as follows in MCL 722.22(e) : (e) "Deployment" means the movement or mobilization of a servicemember to a location for a period of longer than 60 days and not longer than 540 days under temporary or permanent official orders as follows: ( i ) That…”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” See MCL 722.22(j). Even armed with the DNA results confirming his biological connection, Demski had no inherent right to a declaration of his paternity.”
Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “It is also undisputed that several years later, around September 2014, defendant ended the relationship, moved out with the child, and entered into a new relationship with a different woman. Defendant initially allowed plaintiff visitation with the child, but eventually she…”
Stankevich v. Milliron (On Remand), 882 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “at 2, quoting MCL 722.22(h). 1 Plaintiff is not a parent under this definition because she is not an adoptive parent and because she is not related to the child by blood.”
Peters v. Costello, 891 A.2d 705 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “19-A, § 1802 (grandparent is biological or adoptive parent of child's biological or adoptive parent); Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22 (d) (grandparent is natural or adoptive parent of child's natural or adoptive parent); Neb.”
Aichele v. Hodge, 673 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “" MCL 722.22(g). Because the act does not define parent, we undertake the task of statutory construction.”
Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.22; MSA 25.312(22) defines "third person" as "any individual other than a parent.”
Hayford v. Hayford, 760 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 722.22(d). MCL 552.605b permits the entry of a child-support order in certain circumstances for a child who has reached 18 years of age.”
Weaver v. Giffels, 895 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “’ MCL 722.22(d). MCL 552.605b permits the entry of a child-support order in certain circumstances for a child who has reached 18 years of age.”
Smith v. Smith, 447 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 2× “[5] MCL 722.22(a); MSA 25.312(2)(a) defines "child": "`Child' means minor child and children.”
Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “26c(1), describing limited circumstances under which third persons may bring a custody action.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(a) — 1 case
Smith v. Smith, 447 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. 1989). “[5] MCL 722.22(a); MSA 25.312(2)(a) defines "child": "`Child' means minor child and children.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(b) — 1 case
Meachum v. Bower, 402 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(c) — 3 cases
DeVormer v. DeVormer, 618 N.W.2d 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
Meachum v. Bower, 402 N.W.2d 66 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
Baldwin v. Baldwin, 224 N.W.2d 116 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(d) — 4 cases
Hayford v. Hayford, 760 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 722.22(d). MCL 552.605b permits the entry of a child-support order in certain circumstances for a child who has reached 18 years of age.”
Weaver v. Giffels, 895 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “’ MCL 722.22(d). MCL 552.605b permits the entry of a child-support order in certain circumstances for a child who has reached 18 years of age.”
Beverley Nettles v. Daniel E Nickerson Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Robert Porter v. Christina Hill (Mich. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(e) — 5 cases
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin, 916 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The term deployment is defined as follows in MCL 722.22(e) : (e) "Deployment" means the movement or mobilization of a servicemember to a location for a period of longer than 60 days and not longer than 540 days under temporary or permanent official orders as follows: ( i ) That…”
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Robert Porter v. Christina Hill (Mich. 2014).
Porter v. Hill, 836 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(e)(i) — 2 cases
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(f) — 1 case
Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1999). “MCL 722.22; MSA 25.312(22) defines "third person" as "any individual other than a parent.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(g) — 7 cases
Aichele v. Hodge, 673 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “" MCL 722.22(g). Because the act does not define parent, we undertake the task of statutory construction.”
Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “26c(1), describing limited circumstances under which third persons may bring a custody action.”
Kaiser v. Schreiber, 670 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Vita S Shannon v. Aron L Ralston (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Christopher Jon Mildenberg v. Sarah Elizabeth Mildenberg (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(h) — 7 cases
Stankevich v. Milliron (On Remand), 882 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “at 2, quoting MCL 722.22(h). 1 Plaintiff is not a parent under this definition because she is not an adoptive parent and because she is not related to the child by blood.”
Pecoraro v. Rostagno-Wallat, 291 Mich. App. 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
People v. Wambar, 831 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Ewelina Franciszka Skowron v. Mariusz MacIej Skowron (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
Porter v. Hill, 836 N.W.2d 247 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(i) — 13 cases
Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella, 920 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “But, after a remand from this Court, the trial court held that the definition of "parent" contained within MCL 722.22(i) was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.”
Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “It is also undisputed that several years later, around September 2014, defendant ended the relationship, moved out with the child, and entered into a new relationship with a different woman. Defendant initially allowed plaintiff visitation with the child, but eventually she…”
Stankevich v. Milliron (On Remand), 882 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “at 2, quoting MCL 722.22(h). 1 Plaintiff is not a parent under this definition because she is not an adoptive parent and because she is not related to the child by blood.”
Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(j) — 4 cases
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” See MCL 722.22(j). Even armed with the DNA results confirming his biological connection, Demski had no inherent right to a declaration of his paternity.”
Carrie Pueblo v. Rachel Haas (Mich. 2023).
Renee S Harmon v. Tammy L Davis (Mich. 2011).
Christina Holmes v. Robert Jay Brabbs (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.22(k) — 7 cases
Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “It is also undisputed that several years later, around September 2014, defendant ended the relationship, moved out with the child, and entered into a new relationship with a different woman. Defendant initially allowed plaintiff visitation with the child, but eventually she…”
Carrie Pueblo v. Rachel Haas (Mich. 2023).
Michelle Lake v. Kerri Putnam (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Kyresha Lefever v. Lanesha Matthews (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Rola Kolailat v. Lindsey McKennett (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
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.