Michigan

Statutory framework; factor structure: 12.

Authority

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.23

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

12

Operative language

factors to be considered, evaluated and determined

Catch-all language

yes, (l)

Presumptions in the original survey

An order changing an established custodial environment requires clear and convincing evidence that the change serves the child’s best interests, § 722.27(1)(c). When a modification does not change that environment, the best-interest standard is a preponderance of the evidence.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

"breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved"

Authority

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.6

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved"

Other grounds and proof conditions

None (0)

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

Ordinarily no proofs or testimony before 60 days after filing; where there are dependent minor children under 18, ordinarily six months. Upon petition and a proper showing of unusual hardship or compelling necessity, testimony may be taken after 60 days; conditional testimony to preserve evidence is separately permitted (§ 552.9f). The text also retains a desertion clause. This entry does not establish that clause’s modern application or treat desertion as an additional current divorce ground under § 552.6.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, separate maintenance on the same ground, § 552.7

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Applicable statutory relocation factors and custodial-environment analysis. Sole legal custody exempts the parent from the 100-mile factors; Sulaica requires the further environment inquiry where physical custody is shared. Out-of-state court approval and prompt address reporting are separate requirements.

Authority

MCL 722.31, MCR 3.211(C)

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

burden on the relocating parent

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

mileage threshold

Effect of silence

no (consent or court order required)

What the court weighs

Rains v. Rains, 301 Mich. App. 313 (2013), four steps: (1) mover proves by preponderance that the 722.31(4) factors support the move (improved quality of life for child and mover, compliance and motive, ability to preserve parenting time, objector's financial motive, domestic violence). (2) is there an established custodial environment. (3) would the move alter it. (4) if so, best interests under MCL 722.23 by clear and convincing evidence. Spires v. Bergman, 276 Mich. App. 432 (2007): 722.31 does not apply to a sole legal custodian, and MCR 3.211(C) does not require D'Onofrio findings for one. Brecht v. Hendry, 297 Mich. App. 732, 742–43 (2012), addressed a parent with sole legal and physical custody. Sulaica v. Rometty, 308 Mich. App. 568, 583 (2014), distinguished Brecht, Spires and Brausch where the parents shared physical custody: the court must assess whether the move would change an established custodial environment, with clear-and-convincing best-interest proof if it would.

Who carries the burden

Where MCL 722.31(4) applies, the moving party must show by a preponderance that its factors support the move (Rains). Sole legal custody exempts the parent from that statutory factor inquiry. Sulaica nevertheless requires the established-custodial-environment inquiry in its shared-physical-custody setting; if the proposed move alters that environment, the moving party must prove best interests by clear and convincing evidence under § 722.27(1)(c).

Notice and safety exceptions

No general relocation-specific advance-notice period identified. MCR 3.211(C)(2): every custody judgment or order must provide that the custodian 'promptly notify the friend of the court in writing when the minor is moved to another address' (after-the-fact notice to the FOC, not the other parent). Every custody or parenting-time order must also contain the parents' agreed residence-change provision or the default sentence requiring compliance with MCL 722.31 (722.31(5), MCR 3.211(C)(3)). A restricted move needs the other parent's consent or the court's permission after the 722.31(4) factors.

Which moves trigger the rule

Statute: change of the child's legal residence to a location more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence when the action commenced (722.31(1)). Not restricted if the order grants one parent sole legal custody, if the residences were already more than 100 miles apart at commencement, or if the move brings them closer (722.31(2)-(3)). Domestic-violence safe-location exception (722.31(6)). Rule: MCR 3.211(C)(1) requires every custody order to provide that the minor's domicile or residence may not be moved from Michigan without the judge's approval, whatever the distance or legal-custody arrangement.

Objections and the effect of silence

No objection deadline. The move is conditioned on consent or court permission. Silence is not addressed and does not supply consent.

The modification threshold

Not a separate gate in the Rains steps for the domicile motion. When a parent instead moves to change custody because of a move, the MCL 722.27(1)(c) threshold of proper cause or change of circumstances applies first (Brausch v. Brausch, 283 Mich. App. 339 (2009), used only for the general rule because the move there was to Canada). Not every move alters the established custodial environment (Brausch). A cross-country move was enough to reopen custody in Rittershaus, as described in Spires.

Other qualifications

A sole legal custodian is outside the 100-mile statute, but MCR 3.211(C)(1) still requires court approval before the child’s domicile or residence moves from Michigan. Brecht and Spires involved sole legal and physical custody. In Sulaica v. Rometty, 308 Mich. App. 568, 583 (2014), the parents shared physical custody and the court had to assess whether the proposed move would change an established custodial environment; if it would, § 722.27(1)(c) requires a clear-and-convincing best-interests showing.

Burden summary

On the moving parent

Notice summary

Court approval for out-of-state move; prompt address report to friend of the court

Trigger summary

more than 100 miles

Compare parental relocation nationally