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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b (2026)

Standing of guardian or limited guardian of child to bring action for custody of child; filing of action; stay of proceedings; continuation of order in force; copy of judgment or order of disposition; assignment of judge.

✓ 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


722.26b Standing of guardian or limited guardian of child to bring action for custody of child; filing of action; stay of proceedings; continuation of order in force; copy of judgment or order of disposition; assignment of judge.

Sec. 6b.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a guardian or limited guardian of a child has standing to bring an action for custody of the child as provided in this act.

    (2) A limited guardian of a child does not have standing to bring an action for custody of the child if the parent or parents of the child have substantially complied with a limited guardianship placement plan regarding the child entered into as required by section 5205 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.5205, or section 424a of former 1978 PA 642.

    (3) If the circuit court does not have prior continuing jurisdiction over the child, a child custody action brought by a guardian or limited guardian of the child shall be filed in the circuit court in the county in which the probate court appointed the guardian.

    (4) Upon the filing of a child custody action brought by a child's guardian or limited guardian, guardianship proceedings concerning that child in the probate court are stayed until disposition of the child custody action. A probate court order concerning the guardianship of the child continues in force until superseded by a circuit court order. If the circuit court awards custody of the child, it shall send a copy of the judgment or order of disposition to the probate court in the county that appointed the child's guardian or limited guardian.

    (5) If a child's guardian or limited guardian brings a child custody action, the circuit court shall request the supreme court in accordance with section 225 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.225, to assign the probate court judge who appointed that guardian or limited guardian to serve as the circuit court judge and hear the child custody action.

History: Add. 1990, Act 315, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 1990 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 60, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). · cites it 15× “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 760 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “, and (3) whether the ICWA preempted the stay mandated by MCL 722.26b(4). IV THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT In adopting the ICWA, Congress sought to establish “minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families” in order to protect the best interests…”
Bowie v. Arder, 490 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 4× “MCL 722.26b; MSA 25.312(6b). We reiterate, however, that except with regard to grandparents and guardians, the Child Custody Act does not create substantive rights of entitlement to custody of a child, whether the child lives with the parents or with someone else.”
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “26(1) (stating that the act applies to “circuit court child custody disputes and actions”); MCL 722.26b(l) and (5) (granting guardians standing to bring custody actions and providing that the probate judge who appointed the guardian should act as the circuit judge for such child…”
Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.26b; MSA 25.312(6b), M.C.L. § 722.”
Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 729 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “Thus, the custody dispute between Mazurek and Powers was between two parents and the standard best-interests analysis applies without the parental presumption.”
Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “26c(l)(b) (establishing standing for third parties who satisfy all of the following: the minor child’s biological parents never married, one of the child’s parents has died or is missing and the other parent does not have legal custody, and the third person is related to the…”
In Re Anjoski, 770 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to MCL 722.26b, third-party guardians have standing to bring an action for the custody of a child.”
Keagan Farris v. John H McKaig III, 920 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 40 (2000) (explaining that the Legislature did not intend to exclude "temporary guardians" from application of MCL 722.26b(1) by failing to expressly list them in that section because "the Legislature recognized temporary guardians as a subgroup of ordinary guardians" and,…”
Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “See subsection 6b, MCL 722.26b, involving guardianships, and 6c(1), MCL 722.”
In Re Clausen, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993). “[39] MCL 722.26b(1); MSA 25.312(6b)(1). [40] The situation would have been the same if, after having determined that Daniel Schmidt was the father of the child, the Iowa courts had terminated his parental rights.”
Kater v. Brausen, 617 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “*608 The authority of a guardian to bring a child custody action is set forth in MCL 722.26b(l); MSA 25.312(6b)(l): Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a guardian or limited guardian of a child has standing to bring an action for custody of the child pursuant to this…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b(1) — 10 cases
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Keagan Farris v. John H McKaig III, 920 N.W.2d 377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “2d 40 (2000) (explaining that the Legislature did not intend to exclude "temporary guardians" from application of MCL 722.26b(1) by failing to expressly list them in that section because "the Legislature recognized temporary guardians as a subgroup of ordinary guardians" and,…”
In Re Clausen, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993). “[39] MCL 722.26b(1); MSA 25.312(6b)(1). [40] The situation would have been the same if, after having determined that Daniel Schmidt was the father of the child, the Iowa courts had terminated his parental rights.”
Christina Holmes v. Robert Jay Brabbs (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
in Re Guardianship of bibi/wallace Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b(2) — 6 cases
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Bowie v. Arder, 490 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. 1992). “MCL 722.26b; MSA 25.312(6b). We reiterate, however, that except with regard to grandparents and guardians, the Child Custody Act does not create substantive rights of entitlement to custody of a child, whether the child lives with the parents or with someone else.”
Duong v. Hong, 478 N.W.2d 922 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
In re Ramon, 528 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
In Re Guardianship of Luke Tarvis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b(4) — 6 cases
Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 760 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “, and (3) whether the ICWA preempted the stay mandated by MCL 722.26b(4). IV THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT In adopting the ICWA, Congress sought to establish “minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families” in order to protect the best interests…”
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Tina Veneskey v. Michael Keith Sulier (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Unthank v. Wolfe, 763 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Walterhouse v. Ackley, 572 N.W.2d 243 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b(5) — 5 cases
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 760 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “, and (3) whether the ICWA preempted the stay mandated by MCL 722.26b(4). IV THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT In adopting the ICWA, Congress sought to establish “minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families” in order to protect the best interests…”
Unthank v. Wolfe, 763 N.W.2d 924 (Mich. 2009).
Frances Hotchkiss v. Dionte Moore (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
In re Ramon, 528 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26b(l) — 9 cases
In re Bibi Guardianship, 890 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “26(1) (stating that the act applies to “circuit court child custody disputes and actions”); MCL 722.26b(l) and (5) (granting guardians standing to bring custody actions and providing that the probate judge who appointed the guardian should act as the circuit judge for such child…”
Hunter v. Hunter, 771 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 2009). “By this time, the children had been living with plaintiffs in Michigan for about four years. In May 2006, apparently prompted by the order increasing defendant's visitation rights, plaintiffs exercised their rights under MCL 722.”
Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 760 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “, and (3) whether the ICWA preempted the stay mandated by MCL 722.26b(4). IV THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT In adopting the ICWA, Congress sought to establish “minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families” in order to protect the best interests…”
Kater v. Brausen, 617 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “*608 The authority of a guardian to bring a child custody action is set forth in MCL 722.26b(l); MSA 25.312(6b)(l): Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2), a guardian or limited guardian of a child has standing to bring an action for custody of the child pursuant to this…”
Deschaine v. St Germain, 671 N.W.2d 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
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.