CHILD CUSTODY ACT OF 1970
Act 91 of 1970
722.25 Child custody dispute; controlling interests, presumption; award of custody to parent convicted of criminal sexual conduct or acts of nonconsensual sexual penetration; prohibition; support or maintenance obligation; defense; "offending parent" defined.
Sec. 5.
(1) If a child custody dispute is between the parents, between agencies, or between third persons, the best interests of the child control. If the child custody dispute is between the parent or parents and an agency or a third person, the court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is established by clear and convincing evidence.
(2) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act, if a child custody dispute involves a child who is conceived as the result of acts for which 1 of the child's biological parents is convicted of criminal sexual conduct as provided in sections 520a to 520e and 520g of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a to 750.520e and 750.520g, or a substantially similar statute of another state or the federal government, or is found by clear and convincing evidence in a fact-finding hearing to have committed acts of nonconsensual sexual penetration, the court shall not award custody to that biological parent. This subsection does not apply to a conviction under section 520d(1)(a) of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520d. This subsection does not apply if, after the date of the conviction, or the date of the finding in a fact-finding hearing described in this subsection, the biological parents cohabit and establish a mutual custodial environment for the child.
(3) An offending parent is not entitled to custody of a child described in subsection (2) without the consent of that child's other parent or guardian.
(4) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act, subsection (2) does not relieve an offending parent of any support or maintenance obligation to the child. The other parent or the guardian of the child may decline support or maintenance from the offending parent.
(5) A parent may assert an affirmative defense of the provisions of subsection (2) in a proceeding brought by the offending parent regarding a child described in subsection (2).
(6) Notwithstanding other provisions of this act, if an individual is convicted of criminal sexual conduct as provided in sections 520a to 520e and 520g of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a to 750.520e and 750.520g, and the victim is the individual's child, the court shall not award custody of that child or a sibling of that child to that individual, unless both the child's other parent and, if the court considers the child or sibling to be of sufficient age to express his or her desires, the child or sibling consent to the custody.
(7) As used in this section, "offending parent" means a parent who has been convicted of criminal sexual conduct as described in subsection (2) or who has been found by clear and convincing evidence in a fact-finding hearing to have committed acts of nonconsensual sexual penetration as described in subsection (2).
History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 96, Eff. Aug. 1, 2016
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
152
cases (
28 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009).
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009).
· cites it 92× “[11] The central issues in this case are (1) what is the proper application of MCL 722.25(1) and MCL 722.27(1)(c) and (2) do the federal constitutional standards concerning the fundamental rights of parents to raise their children control our answer to the first question.”
Varran v. Granneman, 312 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “Under MCL 722.25(1), in a custody dispute between a parent and a third party, a court “shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence.”
Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 6× “" MCL 722.25; see Ireland v. Smith, 451 Mich.”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “3 MCL 722.25(1) directs that “If the child custody dispute is between the parent or parents and an agency or a third person, the court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is shown by…”
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
· cites it 2× “1981-1982); Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.25 (Supp. 1981-1982); Mo.”
DeRose v. DeRose, 666 N.W.2d 636 (Mich. 2003).
· cites it 6× “23( l ), which requires that courts take into account any unnamed factor relevant to a dispute. One such factor always present in grandparent visitation disputes must be the constitutional rights of the *655 parents.”
Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991).
· cites it 6× “" See MCL 722.25; MSA 25.312(5). But this governing factor can best be considered individually in the very hearing the putative father seeks following the threshold determination of paternity.”
In re Deng, 887 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “, and, in particular, the interplay between the presumption in favor of parental custody set forth in MCL 722.25(1) and the presumption in favor of an established custodial environment in MCL 722.”
Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 729 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “First, we find no merit to Mazurek’s assertion that the trial court should have applied the presumption in MCL 722.25(1) and determined that custody with her was preferable to custody with Powers.”
In Re Anjoski, 770 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “This matter requires us to address (1) whether a third party with no legal connection to the child at issue has standing to initiate a child custody dispute, (2) whether a trial court, in recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in childrearing and the parental…”
Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “MCL 722.25 .... We agree that a showing that a parent is unfit is not required to overcome this presumption.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.25(1) — 72 cases
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009).
“[11] The central issues in this case are (1) what is the proper application of MCL 722.25(1) and MCL 722.27(1)(c) and (2) do the federal constitutional standards concerning the fundamental rights of parents to raise their children control our answer to the first question.”
Varran v. Granneman, 312 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Under MCL 722.25(1), in a custody dispute between a parent and a third party, a court “shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is shown by clear and convincing evidence.”
Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010).
“" MCL 722.25; see Ireland v. Smith, 451 Mich.”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“3 MCL 722.25(1) directs that “If the child custody dispute is between the parent or parents and an agency or a third person, the court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is shown by…”
In re Deng, 887 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“, and, in particular, the interplay between the presumption in favor of parental custody set forth in MCL 722.25(1) and the presumption in favor of an established custodial environment in MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.25(2) — 2 cases
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.