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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26 (2026)

Liberal construction and application of act; purpose; provisions applicable to child custody disputes and actions; precedence of other actions; submission of action; habeas corpus or warrant.

✓ 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


722.26 Liberal construction and application of act; purpose; provisions applicable to child custody disputes and actions; precedence of other actions; submission of action; habeas corpus or warrant.

Sec. 6.

    (1) This act is equitable in nature and shall be liberally construed and applied to establish promptly the rights of the child and the rights and duties of the parties involved. This act applies to all circuit court child custody disputes and actions, whether original or incidental to other actions. Those disputes and actions shall have precedence for hearing and assignment for trial over other civil actions.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 6b or 6e, if the circuit court of this state does not have prior continuing jurisdiction over a child, the action shall be submitted to the circuit court of the county where the child resides or may be found by complaint or complaint and motion for order to show cause. An application for a writ of habeas corpus or for a warrant in its place to obtain custody of a child shall not be granted unless it appears that this act is inadequate and ineffective to resolve the particular child custody dispute.

History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 315, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1990 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “The trial court ruled that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over an action to identify the father of a child born out of wedlock, reasoning that the language in MCL 722.714(1) (governing paternity actions) was similar to the language in MCL 722.”
Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “The act provides that when parents share joint legal custody—as the parties do here— "the parents shall share decision-making authority as to the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child." MCL 722.”
Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 4× “MCL 722.26; MSA 25.312(6). A liberal construction of it supports a finding that this Court is well within its power to expand the equitable parenthood doctrine to a situation such as is presented here.”
Frame v. Nehls, 550 N.W.2d 739 (Mich. 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 722.26(1); M.S.A. § 25.312(6)(1). Section 7b of the Child Custody Act deals specifically with grandparent visitation.”
Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “63 MCL 722.26. 28 Legislature has sought to promote the best interests of children, which is the hallmark of any custody order.”
Killingbeck v. Killingbeck, 711 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “[3] MCL 722.26(1). [4] See Sands v. Sands, 442 Mich.”
Harvey v. Harvey, 680 N.W.2d 835 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.26. The Court discussed two statutory schemes that operate concurrently with the Child Custody Act to provide the parties with alternative methods of dispute resolution: the domestic relations arbitration act and the Friend of the Court Act.”
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 722.26(1); Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 194 ; 704 NW2d 104 (2005).”
Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins., 534 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 1995). · cites it 2× “[9] MCL 722.26; MSA 25.312(6). [10] Whether Heniser actually had to live at the insured premises on a full-time basis, or whether intermittent occupancy was sufficient, is not in dispute.”
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “27(1); see also MCL 722.26(1) (stating that the act applies to “circuit court child custody disputes and actions”); MCL 722.”
Phillips v. Jordan, 614 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.26(1); MSA 25.312(6)(1); Frame v.”
In Re Weldon, 244 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 3× “MCLA 722.26; MSA 25.312(6) says the act's provisions "being equitable in nature shall be liberally construed and applied".”
Show all 83 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26(1) — 46 cases
Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010). “The act provides that when parents share joint legal custody—as the parties do here— "the parents shall share decision-making authority as to the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child." MCL 722.”
Frame v. Nehls, 550 N.W.2d 739 (Mich. 1996). “§ 722.26(1); M.S.A. § 25.312(6)(1). Section 7b of the Child Custody Act deals specifically with grandparent visitation.”
Killingbeck v. Killingbeck, 711 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “[3] MCL 722.26(1). [4] See Sands v. Sands, 442 Mich.”
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 722.26(1); Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188, 194 ; 704 NW2d 104 (2005).”
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “27(1); see also MCL 722.26(1) (stating that the act applies to “circuit court child custody disputes and actions”); MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26(1)(b) — 1 case
Diamond Deneice Bates v. Kieondre Dequan Arkwright (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26(2) — 3 cases
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court ruled that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over an action to identify the father of a child born out of wedlock, reasoning that the language in MCL 722.714(1) (governing paternity actions) was similar to the language in MCL 722.”
Omne Fin., Inc v. Shacks, Inc, 573 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
People of Michigan v. Ira Jibrail Singleton (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26(a)(7)(b) — 1 case
Ashley Patricia Treutle v. John Andrew Treutle (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26(b) — 1 case
Unthank v. Wolfe, 763 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
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.