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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27

Child custody disputes; powers of court; support order; enforcement of judgment or order; child custody while parent on deployment.

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


722.27 Child custody disputes; powers of court; support order; enforcement of judgment or order; child custody while parent on deployment.

Sec. 7.

    (1) If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best interests of the child the court may do 1 or more of the following:

    (a) Award the custody of the child to 1 or more of the parties involved or to others and provide for payment of support for the child, until the child reaches 18 years of age. Subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605b, the court may also order support as provided in this section for a child after he or she reaches 18 years of age. The court may require that support payments shall be made through the friend of the court, court clerk, or state disbursement unit.

    (b) Provide for reasonable parenting time of the child by the parties involved, by the maternal or paternal grandparents, or by others, by general or specific terms and conditions. Parenting time of the child by the parents is governed by section 7a.

    (c) Subject to subsection (3), modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances until the child reaches 18 years of age and, subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605b, until the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age. The court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders or issue a new order so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child. The custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort. The age of the child, the physical environment, and the inclination of the custodian and the child as to permanency of the relationship shall also be considered. If a motion for change of custody is filed while a parent is active duty, the court shall not consider a parent's absence due to that active duty status in a best interest of the child determination.

    (d) Utilize a guardian ad litem or the community resources in behavioral sciences and other professions in the investigation and study of custody disputes and consider their recommendations for the resolution of the disputes.

    (e) Take any other action considered to be necessary in a particular child custody dispute.

    (f) Upon petition consider the reasonable grandparenting time of maternal or paternal grandparents as provided in section 7b and, if denied, make a record of the denial.

    (2) A judgment or order entered under this act providing for the support of a child is governed by and is enforceable as provided in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650. If this act contains a specific provision regarding the contents or enforcement of a support order that conflicts with a provision in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650, this act controls in regard to that provision.

    (3) As provided in the servicemembers civil relief act, 50 USC 501 to 597b, if a motion for change of custody is filed during the time a parent is on deployment, a parent may file and the court shall entertain an application for stay. The court shall not enter an order modifying or amending a previous judgment or order, or issue a new order, that changes the child's placement that existed on the date the parent was called to deployment, except that the court may enter a temporary custody order if there is clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interests of the child. When a temporary custody order is issued under this subsection, the court may include a limit on the period of time that the temporary custody order remains in effect. At any stage before final judgment in the proceeding, the parent may file an application for stay or otherwise request a stay of the proceedings or file an application for an extension of a stay. The parent and the custodial child are not required to be present to consider the application for stay or extension of a stay. The application for stay or extension of a stay is sufficient if it is a signed, written statement, certified to be true under penalty of perjury. The same conditions for the initial stay apply to an application for an extension of a stay. The parent's duration of deployment shall not be considered in making a best interest of the child determination.

    (4) The parent shall inform the court of the deployment end date before or within 30 days after that deployment end date. Upon notification of a parent's deployment end date, the court shall reinstate the custody order in effect immediately preceding that period of deployment. If a motion for change of custody is filed after a parent returns from deployment, the court shall not consider a parent's absence due to that deployment in making a best interest of the child determination. Future deployments shall not be considered in making a best interest of the child determination.

    (5) If the deploying parent and the other parent share custody, the deploying parent must notify the other parent of an upcoming deployment within a reasonable period of time.

History: 1970, Act 91, Eff. Apr. 1, 1971 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 161, Imd. Eff. June 18, 1980 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 215, Eff. Mar. 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 377, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 275, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1989 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 245, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 1990 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 293, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 1990 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 19, Eff. June 1, 1996 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 482, Eff. Mar. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 156, Imd. Eff. Nov. 3, 1999 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 108, Eff. Sept. 30, 2001 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 328, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2005 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 52, Eff. Sept. 7, 2015

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 597 cases (216 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Hunter v. Hunter
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich · cites it 55× “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (2018) michctapp · cites it 31× “27 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best…”
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp · cites it 35× “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2010) mich · cites it 12× “" MCL 722.27(1)(c). While an important decision affecting the welfare of the child may well require adjustments in the parenting time schedules, this does not necessarily mean that the established custodial *484 environment will have been modified.”
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich · cites it 16× “So long as Josalyn lacked the legal capacity to acquire a new domicile of choice and neither of her parents successfully moved to modify the order through a motion to change custody or residence under MCL 722.27 or MCL 722.31 in a family court of continuing jurisdiction,…”
Thompson v. Thompson (2004) michctapp · cites it 15× “Nonetheless, rules of construction also support our interpretation of MCL 722.27. Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2009) michctapp · cites it 13× “MCL 722.27 defines the established custodial environment, quote, “the custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental…”
Demski v. Petlick (2015) michctapp · cites it 10× “A trial court’s authority in a child custody dispute is governed by MCL 722.27(1). See Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 60 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011).”
Varran v. Granneman (2015) michctapp · cites it 12× “(f) In the year preceding the commencement of an action under subsection (3) for grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child as described in [MCL 722.27], whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.”
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp · cites it 9× “On June 30, 2003, this Court: granted plaintiff’s motion for immediate consideration; denied his motion to stay enforcement of the trial court’s order; granted leave to appeal, limited to the issues raised on appeal, pursuant to MCR 7.205(D)(4); and on its own motion, ordered an…”
Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz (2018) mich · cites it 8× “In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the result reached by the **216 Court of Appeals and hold that MCL 722.27(1) is an exception "otherwise provided by law" under MCR 7.”
Phillips v. Jordan (2000) michctapp · cites it 12× “[1] MCL 722.27; MSA 25.312(7). [2] As the United States Supreme Court observed in United States v.”
Show all 597 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1) — 61 cases
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz (2018) mich “In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the result reached by the **216 Court of Appeals and hold that MCL 722.27(1) is an exception "otherwise provided by law" under MCR 7.”
Demski v. Petlick (2015) michctapp “A trial court’s authority in a child custody dispute is governed by MCL 722.27(1). See Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54, 60 ; 811 NW2d 39 (2011).”
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich “So long as Josalyn lacked the legal capacity to acquire a new domicile of choice and neither of her parents successfully moved to modify the order through a motion to change custody or residence under MCL 722.27 or MCL 722.31 in a family court of continuing jurisdiction,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(C) — 2 cases
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Laura E Zalewski v. Terry M Zalewski (2019) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(a) — 24 cases
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich “So long as Josalyn lacked the legal capacity to acquire a new domicile of choice and neither of her parents successfully moved to modify the order through a motion to change custody or residence under MCL 722.27 or MCL 722.31 in a family court of continuing jurisdiction,…”
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Thompson v. Thompson (2004) michctapp “Nonetheless, rules of construction also support our interpretation of MCL 722.27. Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.”
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
In Re Anjoski (2009) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(b) — 19 cases
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Heltzel v. Heltzel (2002) michctapp
Rozek v. Rozek (1993) michctapp
Kate McClory v. Ryan McClory (2026) michctapp
Mark J Kollar v. Briana Sparks (2023) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(c) — 414 cases
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (2018) michctapp “27 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best…”
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Thompson v. Thompson (2004) michctapp “Nonetheless, rules of construction also support our interpretation of MCL 722.27. Unless defined in the statute, every word or phrase of a statute should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, considering the context in which the words are used.”
Berger v. Berger (2008) michctapp
Pierron v. Pierron (2010) mich “" MCL 722.27(1)(c). While an important decision affecting the welfare of the child may well require adjustments in the parenting time schedules, this does not necessarily mean that the established custodial *484 environment will have been modified.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(d) — 8 cases
Meghan Marie Kuebler v. Paul Andrew Kuebler (2023) michctapp
Nossonal Kleinfeldt v. Nicole Stern (2025) michctapp
Vita S Shannon v. Aron L Ralston (2019) michctapp
Thomas J O'Brien Jr v. Ann Marie D'Annunzio (2020) michctapp
Christopher Jon Mildenberg v. Sarah Elizabeth Mildenberg (2022) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(d)(3) — 2 cases
Robin E Silas v. Evelyn a McKenney (2023) michctapp
Robin E Silas v. Evelyn a McKenney (2023) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(e) — 6 cases
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich “So long as Josalyn lacked the legal capacity to acquire a new domicile of choice and neither of her parents successfully moved to modify the order through a motion to change custody or residence under MCL 722.27 or MCL 722.31 in a family court of continuing jurisdiction,…”
Varran v. Granneman (2015) michctapp “(f) In the year preceding the commencement of an action under subsection (3) for grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child as described in [MCL 722.27], whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.”
Susan Reanel Ludwig v. Craig Cooper Ludwig (2017) michctapp
Susan Reanel Ludwig v. Craig Cooper Ludwig (2017) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(1)(f) — 1 case
Williams v. Williams (1998) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(2) — 8 cases
Dick v. Dick (1995) michctapp
Ghidotti v. Barber (1998) mich
Thames v. Thames (1991) michctapp
Booth v. Booth (1992) michctapp
Calley v. Calley (1992) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(4) — 3 cases
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (2018) michctapp “27 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) If a child custody dispute has been submitted to the circuit court as an original action under this act or has arisen incidentally from another action in the circuit court or an order or judgment of the circuit court, for the best…”
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (2018) michctapp
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffin (2018) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(6)(e) — 1 case
Arthur Lawrence v. Cindy Lawrence (2025) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(a) — 4 cases
Blaskowski v. Blaskowski (1982) michctapp
Edel v. Edel (1980) michctapp
Meyer v. Meyer (1986) michctapp
Katharine Marie Sprague v. Robert Franklin Houston Bray (2016) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(a)(7) — 2 cases
Jason Aaron Fuchs v. Angie Lynn Fuchs (2019) michctapp
Patricia Labarre v. Robert S Labarre (2019) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(b) — 5 cases
Agati v. Agati (1985) pa
Ruppel v. Lesner (1985) mich
Olepa v. Olepa (1986) michctapp
Stevens v. Stevens (1978) michctapp
D'ALLESSANDRO v. Ely (1988) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(c) — 52 cases
DeGrow v. DeGrow (1982) michctapp
Stevens v. Stevens (1978) michctapp
Deel v. Deel (1982) michctapp
Siwik v. Siwik (1979) michctapp
Lorenz v. Lorenz (1988) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(c)(1) — 1 case
Thomas J O'Brien Jr v. Ann Marie D'Annunzio (2021) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(d) — 2 cases
Gulyas v. Gulyas (1977) michctapp
Siwik v. Siwik (1979) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(d)(1) — 1 case
In Re Jcm Minor (2026) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(e) — 1 case
Gulyas v. Gulyas (1977) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(f) — 5 cases
Varran v. Granneman (2015) michctapp “(f) In the year preceding the commencement of an action under subsection (3) for grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child as described in [MCL 722.27], whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.”
Green v. Green (1978) michctapp
Berman v. Berman (1978) michctapp
Lyons v. Lyons (1983) michctapp
Emily R Varran v. Peter J Granneman (2015) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l) — 1 case
Phillips v. Jordan (2000) michctapp “[1] MCL 722.27; MSA 25.312(7). [2] As the United States Supreme Court observed in United States v.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l)(a) — 10 cases
In Re Anjoski (2009) michctapp
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Varran v. Granneman (2015) michctapp “(f) In the year preceding the commencement of an action under subsection (3) for grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child as described in [MCL 722.27], whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.”
Haller v. Haller (1988) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l)(b) — 4 cases
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Terry v. Affum (2000) michctapp
Varran v. Granneman (2015) michctapp “(f) In the year preceding the commencement of an action under subsection (3) for grandparenting time, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child as described in [MCL 722.27], whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.”
Haller v. Haller (1988) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l)(c) — 76 cases
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2009) michctapp “MCL 722.27 defines the established custodial environment, quote, “the custodial environment of a child is established if over an appreciable time the child naturally looks to the custodian in that environment for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental…”
Kaeb v. Kaeb (2015) michctapp “With respect to child custody disputes, “[t]he goal of MCL 722.27 is to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders, except under the most compelling circumstances.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2010) mich “" MCL 722.27(1)(c). While an important decision affecting the welfare of the child may well require adjustments in the parenting time schedules, this does not necessarily mean that the established custodial *484 environment will have been modified.”
Sulaica v. Rometty (2014) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l)(e) — 3 cases
Hunter v. Hunter (2009) mich “" But the powers of the circuit court in any action under the *721 CCA are also governed by MCL 722.27, which circumscribes the orders a court may enter regarding a complaint for custody.”
Heltzel v. Heltzel (2002) michctapp
In re AJR (2014) mich
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(l)(f) — 2 cases
Dick v. Dick (1995) michctapp
Schoensee v. Bennett (1998) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27(lXc) — 1 case
Mazurkiewicz v. Mazurkiewicz (1987) michctapp
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.