Subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (MCL 722.1101 et seq.) to issue an order granting joint legal & physical custody; Jamil v. Jahan; Fisher v. Belcher; Atchison v. Atchison; MCL 722.1201(1); MCL 722.1201(1)(a); MCL 722.1203; MCL 722.1203(a); Custody; Whether the trial court properly modified the existing Ohio custody order without first holding an evidentiary hearing & making the required findings; In re AP; Shulick v. Richards; The Child Custody Act (MCL 722.21 et seq.); Lieberman v. Orr; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Grew v. Knox; Mann v. Mann; Mootness; Crampton v. Crampton; C D Barnes Assoc., Inc. v. Star Heaven, LLC

The court held that under MCL 722.1203, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order awarding joint legal and physical custody. Also, the issue as to whether the trial court properly modified the existing Ohio custody order without first holding an evidentiary hearing and making the required findings was moot because the challenged order was no longer in effect. Defendant-mother argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to issue an order granting joint legal and physical custody. Michigan was their children’s home state for the nine years immediately preceding her relocation of the children to Ohio, and within 6 months of the time that plaintiff-father commenced proceedings and requested that the trial court accept jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. At that time, he continued to reside in Michigan. Michigan was thus the children’s home state under MCL 722.1201(1). Nonetheless, defendant asserted that “the Michigan trial court lacked jurisdiction because an initial custody determination had been entered in Ohio and the Ohio court has not relinquished jurisdiction.” The court disagreed. The “trial court had jurisdiction under MCL 722.1201(1)(a) to make an initial custody determination.” The question then became, “under MCL 722.1203(a), whether the Ohio court has determined that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.” The court held “that the Ohio court determined that it did not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the matter because both parents and the children had lived in Michigan for the preceding nine years.” The trial court entered an order on 10/22/19 accepting jurisdiction. The order stated that the trial court had consulted with the magistrate "in the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Juvenile Division pursuant to the UCCJEA [and] [b]oth Courts agree that Kent County Circuit Court in the State of Michigan is the more appropriate forum due to the family residing in Kent County since 2010.’” Also, the Ohio court “entered orders dismissing a motion filed by defendant seeking a change of custody, denying defendant’s motion to retain jurisdiction in Ohio, denying defendant’s objection to the transfer of jurisdiction to Michigan, and stating that it no longer has exclusive jurisdiction and that jurisdiction was proper in Michigan because the children had resided in Michigan for the past nine years.” Affirmed.