Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a (2026)

Joint custody.

✓ 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

722.26a Joint custody.

Sec. 6a.

(1) In custody disputes between parents, the parents shall be advised of joint custody. At the request of either parent, the court shall consider an award of joint custody, and shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying a request. In other cases joint custody may be considered by the court. The court shall determine whether joint custody is in the best interest of the child by considering the following factors:

(a) The factors enumerated in section 3.

(b) Whether the parents will be able to cooperate and generally agree concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of the child.

(2) If the parents agree on joint custody, the court shall award joint custody unless the court determines on the record, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that joint custody is not in the best interests of the child.

(3) If the court awards joint custody, the court may include in its award a statement regarding when the child shall reside with each parent, or may provide that physical custody be shared by the parents in a manner to assure the child continuing contact with both parents.

(4) During the time a child resides with a parent, that parent shall decide all routine matters concerning the child.

(5) If there is a dispute regarding residency, the court shall state the basis for a residency award on the record or in writing.

(6) Joint custody shall not eliminate the responsibility for child support. Each parent shall be responsible for child support based on the needs of the child and the actual resources of each parent. If a parent would otherwise be unable to maintain adequate housing for the child and the other parent has sufficient resources, the court may order modified support payments for a portion of housing expenses even during a period when the child is not residing in the home of the parent receiving support. An order of joint custody, in and of itself, shall not constitute grounds for modifying a support order.

(7) As used in this section, "joint custody" means an order of the court in which 1 or both of the following is specified:

(a) That the child shall reside alternately for specific periods with each of the parents.

(b) That the parents shall share decision-making authority as to the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child.

History: Add. 1980, Act 434, Imd. Eff. Jan. 14, 1981

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 143 cases (77 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 28× “67 For example, MCL 722.26a recognizes the possibility of “joint custody,” which may consist of either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or both joint physical and legal custody.”

Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 811 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “MCL 722.26a; Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 426 ; 395 NW2d 65 (1986).”

Shulick v. Richards, 729 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “26a(l)(b) provides that a joint custody arrangement “is available only where ‘the parents will be able to cooperate [and generally agree on matters concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of]’ their children,” Schwiesow v Schwiesow, 159 Mich App 548, 559 ; 406 NW2d…”

In re AJR, 852 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 8× “” Insight into the meaning of the term “legal custody” can be found by review of a related statute — MCL 722.26a — which was added during the same legislative session in which MCL 710.”

Pierron v. Pierron, 765 N.W.2d 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “” MCL 722.26a(7)(b). A decision concerning the child’s schooling and education is just such an important decision affecting the welfare of the child.”

Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “" MCL 722.26a(7)(b). However, when the parents cannot agree on an important decision, such as a change of the child's school, the court is responsible for resolving the issue in the best interests of the child.”

Diez v. Davey, 861 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Rather, pursuant to MCL 722.26a(7)(a), “joint custody,” in terms of physical custody, is defined as an order of the court in which it is specified that “the child shall reside alternately for specific periods with each of the parents.”

Wright v. Wright, 761 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “In this case, however, plaintiff was more than “advised” of joint custody; he was actually granted joint custody in both the invalidated ex parte order he filed and in the replacement temporary order to maintain the custodial status quo.”

Butler v. Simmons-Butler, 863 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.26a(l)(a). These findings were more than adequate to comply with the statute and to support the court’s decision awarding plaintiff sole legal custody.”

Wellman v. Wellman, 512 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “In substance, custody disputes between parents are governed by MCL 722.26a; MSA 25.312(6a). In particular, at the request of either parent, as here, the trial court "shall consider an award of joint custody, and shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying a…”

Varran v. Granneman, 312 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “27(l)(a) (stating that a court may i£[a]ward the custody of the child to 1 or more of the parties involved”); MCL 722.26a (concerning joint custody). Keeping this in mind, when MCR 7.”

Phillips v. Jordan, 614 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 722.26a(7)(b); MSA 25.312(6a)(7)(b) (emphasis added).”

Show all 143 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(1) — 43 cases

Wright v. Wright, 761 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “In this case, however, plaintiff was more than “advised” of joint custody; he was actually granted joint custody in both the invalidated ex parte order he filed and in the replacement temporary order to maintain the custodial status quo.”

Wellman v. Wellman, 512 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “In substance, custody disputes between parents are governed by MCL 722.26a; MSA 25.312(6a). In particular, at the request of either parent, as here, the trial court "shall consider an award of joint custody, and shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying a…”

Lauren Michelle Brown v. Leon Jermaine Walker (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

20241217_C371011_28_371011.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Kate Lisa McCloud v. David Leon McCloud (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(1)(a) — 27 cases

Danielle Kristy Barjas v. Donald Allen Mills (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Bethany M Hill v. Joseph J Hill (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Gennile Najib Hajji v. Dured Badri Hajji (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Matthew J Rozen v. Katie M Rozen (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(1)(b) — 45 cases

Molloy v. Molloy, 628 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Kate Lisa McCloud v. David Leon McCloud (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Kyle Michael Kelley v. Elizabeth Ann Kelley (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Keith Devan Dozier v. Kayla Maria Howell (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(2) — 1 case

Brandon Bernard Carr v. Caci Ann Carr (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(4) — 6 cases

Lombardo v. Lombardo, 507 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

20241113_C369802_57_369802.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Diamond Deneice Bates v. Kieondre Dequan Arkwright (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Bcm v. Drh (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Paul E Debono v. Casey C Cummins (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(6) — 1 case

Cynthia Sue Anderson v. Kyle Martin Anderson (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(7) — 22 cases

Grange Ins. Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence, 494 Mich. 475 (Mich. 2013). “67 For example, MCL 722.26a recognizes the possibility of “joint custody,” which may consist of either joint physical custody or joint legal custody or both joint physical and legal custody.”

Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 811 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 722.26a; Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 426 ; 395 NW2d 65 (1986).”

In re AJR, 852 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. 2014). “” Insight into the meaning of the term “legal custody” can be found by review of a related statute — MCL 722.26a — which was added during the same legislative session in which MCL 710.”

Shulick v. Richards, 729 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “26a(l)(b) provides that a joint custody arrangement “is available only where ‘the parents will be able to cooperate [and generally agree on matters concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of]’ their children,” Schwiesow v Schwiesow, 159 Mich App 548, 559 ; 406 NW2d…”

Lombardo v. Lombardo, 507 N.W.2d 788 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(7)(a) — 16 cases

Diez v. Davey, 861 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “Rather, pursuant to MCL 722.26a(7)(a), “joint custody,” in terms of physical custody, is defined as an order of the court in which it is specified that “the child shall reside alternately for specific periods with each of the parents.”

Varran v. Granneman, 312 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “27(l)(a) (stating that a court may i£[a]ward the custody of the child to 1 or more of the parties involved”); MCL 722.26a (concerning joint custody). Keeping this in mind, when MCR 7.”

Ozimek v. Rodgers, 893 N.W.2d 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(7)(b) — 45 cases

Pierron v. Pierron, 765 N.W.2d 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 722.26a(7)(b). A decision concerning the child’s schooling and education is just such an important decision affecting the welfare of the child.”

Pierron v. Pierron, 782 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. 2010). “" MCL 722.26a(7)(b). However, when the parents cannot agree on an important decision, such as a change of the child's school, the court is responsible for resolving the issue in the best interests of the child.”

Phillips v. Jordan, 614 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “§ 722.26a(7)(b); MSA 25.312(6a)(7)(b) (emphasis added).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(l) — 4 cases

Spires v. Bergman, 741 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Mixon v. Mixon, 602 N.W.2d 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

Arndt v. Kasem, 402 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(l)(a) — 2 cases

Butler v. Simmons-Butler, 863 N.W.2d 677 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 722.26a(l)(a). These findings were more than adequate to comply with the statute and to support the court’s decision awarding plaintiff sole legal custody.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26a(l)(b) — 6 cases

Dailey v. Kloenhamer, 811 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MCL 722.26a; Meyer v Meyer, 153 Mich App 419, 426 ; 395 NW2d 65 (1986).”

McIntosh v. McIntosh, 768 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

Molloy v. Molloy, 628 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

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.