Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c (2026)

Custody action by third person; conditions.

✓ 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

722.26c Custody action by third person; conditions.

Sec. 6c.

(1) A third person may bring an action for custody of a child if the court finds either of the following:

(a) Both of the following:

(i) The child was placed for adoption with the third person under the adoption laws of this or another state, and the placement order is still in effect at the time the action is filed.

(ii) After the placement, the child has resided with the third person for a minimum of 6 months.

(b) All of the following:

(i) The child's biological parents have never been married to one another.

(ii) The child's parent who has custody of the child dies or is missing and the other parent has not been granted legal custody under court order.

(iii) The third person is related to the child within the fifth degree by marriage, blood, or adoption.

(2) A third person shall include with an action filed under this section both of the following:

(a) An affidavit setting forth facts relative to the existence of the prerequisites required by subsection (1)(a) or (b).

(b) Notice that a defense or objection to a third person's right to bring an action for custody may be raised as an affirmative defense or by a motion for summary disposition based on lack of standing as provided in the Michigan court rules.

History: Add. 1993, Act 259, Imd. Eff. Nov. 29, 1993

Compiler's Notes:

Section 2 of Act No. 259 of the Public Acts of 1993 provided:

“Sections 6c to 6e as added by this amendatory act are remedial in nature and apply retroactively.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Eldred v. Ziny, 631 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eldred v. Ziny, 631 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “The Barry County Friend of the Court held a conciliation conference on May 24, 2000, and, thereafter, the circuit court entered an order that granted the father and the grandmother joint legal custody, and transferred physical custody of Harley to the grandmother, Colleen Eldred.”

Aichele v. Hodge, 673 N.W.2d 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “[16] Because the Child Custody Act only specifically limits the standing of guardians and *468 third persons, plaintiff, as an acknowledged parent, would not have to establish standing under MCL 722.26c. [17] The majority expresses grave concern for the due process rights of the…”

Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 729 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Thus, the custody dispute between Mazurek and Powers was between two parents and the standard best-interests analysis applies without the parental presumption. MCL 722.25(1).”

Kaiser v. Schreiber, 670 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “MCL 722.26c states, in pertinent part: (1) A third person may bring an action for custody of a child if the court finds either of the following: (a) Both of the following: (i) The child was placed for adoption with the third person under the adoption laws of this or another…”

In Re Anjoski, 770 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “Further, we cannot agree with plaintiffs argument that the Legislature must have intended the “to others” provision to mean “others with standing” because interpreting the language to include all “others” would abrogate the standing requirements of MCL 722.26c. To adopt…”

Van v. Zahorik, 597 N.W.2d 15 (Mich. 1999). · cites it 3× “§ 722.26c; MSA 25.312(6c) articulates circumstances under which a third person may bring an action for custody of a child.”

Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “This Court in Terry I found that the mother’s family lacked standing to initiate a proceeding seeking parenting time pursuant to MCL 722.26c. Terry I, supra at 502 . On remand from the Supreme Court, this Court in Terry II considered whether pursuant to MCL 722.”

Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “26b (establishing standing for third-party guardians or limited guardians under certain circumstances) or MCL 722.26c(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…”

Varran v. Granneman, 312 Mich. App. 591 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Of course, if a grandparent effectively seeks custody, it would be necessary for the grandparent to satisfy the criteria in MCL 722.26c regarding actions for custody by third persons.”

Empson-Laviolette v. Crago, 760 N.W.2d 793 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “See MCL 722.26c (setting forth when a third party may bring an action for custody of a child).”

Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “See MCL 722.26c; Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41 . The child enjoys a legal relationship with Beaman, and that relationship should not be destroyed absent a finding that it is in the child’s best interests, using the best-interest factors in MCL 722.”

Anita L Sheardown v. Janine Guastella, 920 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “Therefore, this Court must decide whether, under the circumstances of this case, the definition of ''parent'' in MCL 722.”

Show all 35 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(1) — 2 cases

Heltzel v. Heltzel, 638 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “This Court in Terry I found that the mother’s family lacked standing to initiate a proceeding seeking parenting time pursuant to MCL 722.26c. Terry I, supra at 502 . On remand from the Supreme Court, this Court in Terry II considered whether pursuant to MCL 722.”

Carrie Pueblo v. Rachel Haas (Mich. 2023).

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

Kaiser v. Schreiber, 670 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “MCL 722.26c states, in pertinent part: (1) A third person may bring an action for custody of a child if the court finds either of the following: (a) Both of the following: (i) The child was placed for adoption with the third person under the adoption laws of this or another…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(1)(b) — 6 cases

Eldred v. Ziny, 631 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “The Barry County Friend of the Court held a conciliation conference on May 24, 2000, and, thereafter, the circuit court entered an order that granted the father and the grandmother joint legal custody, and transferred physical custody of Harley to the grandmother, Colleen Eldred.”

Michelle Lake v. Kerri Putnam (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Annette Birmingham (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(1)(b)(i) — 1 case

Kyresha Lefever v. Lanesha Matthews (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(1)(b)(ii) — 3 cases

Lee v. Robinson, 681 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).

Jose Guardalupe Hernandez v. Victoria Mayoral-Martinez (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(l) — 3 cases

Sirovey v. Campbell, 565 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Unthank v. Wolfe, 763 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).

In re Ramon, 528 N.W.2d 831 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

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

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(l)(b) — 7 cases

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. MCL 722.25(1).”

Lake v. Putnam, 894 N.W.2d 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “26b (establishing standing for third-party guardians or limited guardians under certain circumstances) or MCL 722.26c(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…”

In Re Anjoski, 770 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Further, we cannot agree with plaintiffs argument that the Legislature must have intended the “to others” provision to mean “others with standing” because interpreting the language to include all “others” would abrogate the standing requirements of MCL 722.26c. To adopt…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(l)(b)(i) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(l)(b)(ii) — 3 cases

Deschaine v. St Germain, 671 N.W.2d 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.26c(l)(b)(iii) — 1 case

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.