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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31

Legal residence change of child whose parental custody governed by court order.

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


722.31 Legal residence change of child whose parental custody governed by court order.

Sec. 11.

    (1) A child whose parental custody is governed by court order has, for the purposes of this section, a legal residence with each parent. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a parent of a child whose custody is governed by court order shall not change a legal residence of the child to a location that is more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time of the commencement of the action in which the order is issued.

    (2) A parent's change of a child's legal residence is not restricted by subsection (1) if the other parent consents to, or if the court, after complying with subsection (4), permits, the residence change. This section does not apply if the order governing the child's custody grants sole legal custody to 1 of the child's parents.

    (3) This section does not apply if, at the time of the commencement of the action in which the custody order is issued, the child's 2 residences were more than 100 miles apart. This section does not apply if the legal residence change results in the child's 2 legal residences being closer to each other than before the change.

    (4) Before permitting a legal residence change otherwise restricted by subsection (1), the court shall consider each of the following factors, with the child as the primary focus in the court's deliberations:

    (a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.

    (b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent's plan to change the child's legal residence is inspired by that parent's desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.

    (c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child's schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.

    (d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.

    (e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.

    (5) Each order determining or modifying custody or parenting time of a child shall include a provision stating the parent's agreement as to how a change in either of the child's legal residences will be handled. If such a provision is included in the order and a child's legal residence change is done in compliance with that provision, this section does not apply. If the parents do not agree on such a provision, the court shall include in the order the following provision: "A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with section 11 of the "Child Custody Act of 1970", 1970 PA 91, MCL 722.31.".

    (6) If this section applies to a change of a child's legal residence and the parent seeking to change that legal residence needs to seek a safe location from the threat of domestic violence, the parent may move to such a location with the child until the court makes a determination under this section.

History: Add. 2000, Act 422, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2001

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 97 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich · cites it 34× “The judgment of divorce further provided: 3 A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order, shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with [MCL 722.31], which prohibits moving a child out of the State of Michigan or…”
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp · cites it 26× “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…”
Brecht v. Hendry (2012) michctapp · cites it 29× “211(C)(1) and (3), the custody order provided that the domicile of the minor child could not be removed from the state of Michigan without the court’s approval and that a parent whose custody or parenting time was governed by the order could not change the child’s legal…”
Spires v. Bergman (2007) michctapp · cites it 25× “Plaintiff argued that MCL 722.31 did not apply because she had sole legal custody.”
Brausch v. Brausch (2009) michctapp · cites it 24× “Plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to enforce the parties’ agreement and the judgment of divorce regarding custody and change of residence, that the trial court erroneously applied MCL 722.31 and MCR 3.211(C) to the instant case, and that the trial court abused its…”
Rains v. Rains (2013) michctapp · cites it 12× “See also MCL 722.31. Therefore, the August 12, 2003, order is final, and appealable by right.”
Sulaica v. Rometty (2014) michctapp · cites it 16× “This Court agrees that the trial court focused too narrowly on whether the 100-mile rule, MCL 722.31, applied and failed to analyze the requested move in the context of whether it constituted a change to an established custodial environment, which would warrant closer scrutiny.”
Gagnon v. Glowacki (2012) michctapp · cites it 21× “” Because it found no change in the established custodial environment, the trial court found it unnecessary to consider any best-interest factors.”
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp · cites it 20× “On August 25, 2004, the trial court held an expedited hearing to consider defendant’s motion and concluded that MCL 722.31 governed plaintiffs request for a change in her domicile and the child’s legal residence.”
Rittershaus v. Rittershaus (2007) michctapp · cites it 9× “; see also MCL 722.31. Because the children have an established custodial environment with plaintiff, defendant was required to *474 show “by clear and convincing evidence” that his suggested change of custody would be in the children’s best interests.”
Pierron v. Pierron (2010) mich · cites it 6× “Moreover, contrary to the Court of Appeals, I do not read MCL 722.31(1) as implicitly providing that "a custodial parent may move a child's residence by less than 100 miles without first obtaining permission from the court or consent from the other party.”
Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers (2008) michctapp · cites it 17× “At a hearing held two days after it had entered the restraining order, the trial court found that Robert’s proposed change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit imposed by MCL 722.31. Because the change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit, the…”
Show all 97 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(1) — 47 cases
Pierron v. Pierron (2010) mich “Moreover, contrary to the Court of Appeals, I do not read MCL 722.31(1) as implicitly providing that "a custodial parent may move a child's residence by less than 100 miles without first obtaining permission from the court or consent from the other party.”
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich “The judgment of divorce further provided: 3 A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order, shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with [MCL 722.31], which prohibits moving a child out of the State of Michigan or…”
Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers (2008) michctapp “At a hearing held two days after it had entered the restraining order, the trial court found that Robert’s proposed change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit imposed by MCL 722.31. Because the change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit, the…”
Pierron v. Pierron (2009) michctapp
Deschaine v. St Germain (2003) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(2) — 15 cases
Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence (2013) mich “The judgment of divorce further provided: 3 A parent whose custody or parenting time of a child is governed by this order, shall not change the legal residence of the child except in compliance with [MCL 722.31], which prohibits moving a child out of the State of Michigan or…”
Spires v. Bergman (2007) michctapp “Plaintiff argued that MCL 722.31 did not apply because she had sole legal custody.”
Brecht v. Hendry (2012) michctapp “211(C)(1) and (3), the custody order provided that the domicile of the minor child could not be removed from the state of Michigan without the court’s approval and that a parent whose custody or parenting time was governed by the order could not change the child’s legal…”
Sulaica v. Rometty (2014) michctapp “This Court agrees that the trial court focused too narrowly on whether the 100-mile rule, MCL 722.31, applied and failed to analyze the requested move in the context of whether it constituted a change to an established custodial environment, which would warrant closer scrutiny.”
Brausch v. Brausch (2009) michctapp “Plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to enforce the parties’ agreement and the judgment of divorce regarding custody and change of residence, that the trial court erroneously applied MCL 722.31 and MCR 3.211(C) to the instant case, and that the trial court abused its…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(3) — 4 cases
Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers (2008) michctapp “At a hearing held two days after it had entered the restraining order, the trial court found that Robert’s proposed change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit imposed by MCL 722.31. Because the change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit, the…”
Vita S Shannon v. Aron L Ralston (2019) michctapp
Zaid Safdar v. Donya Aziz (2022) michctapp
Nossonal Kleinfeldt v. Nicole Stern (2024) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4) — 84 cases
Rains v. Rains (2013) michctapp “See also MCL 722.31. Therefore, the August 12, 2003, order is final, and appealable by right.”
Brecht v. Hendry (2012) michctapp “211(C)(1) and (3), the custody order provided that the domicile of the minor child could not be removed from the state of Michigan without the court’s approval and that a parent whose custody or parenting time was governed by the order could not change the child’s legal…”
Sulaica v. Rometty (2014) michctapp “This Court agrees that the trial court focused too narrowly on whether the 100-mile rule, MCL 722.31, applied and failed to analyze the requested move in the context of whether it constituted a change to an established custodial environment, which would warrant closer scrutiny.”
Gagnon v. Glowacki (2012) michctapp “” Because it found no change in the established custodial environment, the trial court found it unnecessary to consider any best-interest factors.”
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp “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…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4)(a) — 37 cases
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp “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…”
Rittershaus v. Rittershaus (2007) michctapp “; see also MCL 722.31. Because the children have an established custodial environment with plaintiff, defendant was required to *474 show “by clear and convincing evidence” that his suggested change of custody would be in the children’s best interests.”
Kessler v. Kessler (2011) michctapp
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp “On August 25, 2004, the trial court held an expedited hearing to consider defendant’s motion and concluded that MCL 722.31 governed plaintiffs request for a change in her domicile and the child’s legal residence.”
Gagnon v. Glowacki (2012) michctapp “” Because it found no change in the established custodial environment, the trial court found it unnecessary to consider any best-interest factors.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4)(b) — 24 cases
Rittershaus v. Rittershaus (2007) michctapp “; see also MCL 722.31. Because the children have an established custodial environment with plaintiff, defendant was required to *474 show “by clear and convincing evidence” that his suggested change of custody would be in the children’s best interests.”
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp “On August 25, 2004, the trial court held an expedited hearing to consider defendant’s motion and concluded that MCL 722.31 governed plaintiffs request for a change in her domicile and the child’s legal residence.”
Gagnon v. Glowacki (2012) michctapp “” Because it found no change in the established custodial environment, the trial court found it unnecessary to consider any best-interest factors.”
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp
Sarah Sughnen Yongo v. Ikechukwu Augustine Okochi (2026) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4)(c) — 29 cases
Rittershaus v. Rittershaus (2007) michctapp “; see also MCL 722.31. Because the children have an established custodial environment with plaintiff, defendant was required to *474 show “by clear and convincing evidence” that his suggested change of custody would be in the children’s best interests.”
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp “On August 25, 2004, the trial court held an expedited hearing to consider defendant’s motion and concluded that MCL 722.31 governed plaintiffs request for a change in her domicile and the child’s legal residence.”
McKimmy v. Melling (2011) michctapp
Grew v. Knox (2005) michctapp
Damien T Weekly v. Anasty C Weekly (2025) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4)(d) — 9 cases
Damien T Weekly v. Anasty C Weekly (2025) michctapp
Stephani Lara Yachcik v. Kristopher Jon Yachcik (2017) michctapp
Karista Eads v. Walter Scott (2018) michctapp
Erica Rhae Moote v. Dustin Edward Moote (2019) michctapp
Monica Vaghani Sutariya v. Yashesh Sutariya (2020) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(4)(e) — 10 cases
Sarah Sughnen Yongo v. Ikechukwu Augustine Okochi (2026) michctapp
Monica Vaghani Sutariya v. Yashesh Sutariya (2020) michctapp
20231130_C366008_50_366008.Opn.Pdf (2023) michctapp
Damien T Weekly v. Anasty C Weekly (2025) michctapp
Rana Radha v. Ahmed Mohammed (2025) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(5) — 4 cases
Bowers v. VanderMeulen-Bowers (2008) michctapp “At a hearing held two days after it had entered the restraining order, the trial court found that Robert’s proposed change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit imposed by MCL 722.31. Because the change in legal residence would not exceed the 100-mile limit, the…”
Delamielleure v. Belote (2005) michctapp
20231130_C366008_50_366008.Opn.Pdf (2023) michctapp
Sam Foerster v. Carrice McKinstry (2025) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(a) — 1 case
Ernestine Moore v. Christopher Forbers (2022) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(b) — 1 case
Sarah Sughnen Yongo v. Ikechukwu Augustine Okochi (2026) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(e) — 1 case
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp “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…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.31(lXe) — 1 case
Brown v. Loveman (2004) michctapp “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…”
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.