The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); Registration of a German custody order; MCL 722.1304(4); MCL 722.1105(2); Notice; MCL 722.1108(1); Due process; Whether the German order was in “substantial conformity” with Michigan law; MCL 722.1105(2); Failure to apply Michigan’s best-interest factors; Atchison v Atchison

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the German custody order at issue pursuant to the UCCJEA, the court affirmed. Respondent-father (Benjamin) contended that “(1) he was deprived of due process when he was not given proper notice of the German custody proceedings, and (2) the trial court erred by finding that he failed to prove a lack-of-notice defense to registration of the German custody order.” However, the court noted the absence of evidence or an explanation of how or when he “was notified of the German proceedings, his failure to address Germany’s service requirements, and his inconsistent acknowledgment to having some notice of the German proceedings[.]” As to due process, not only was the factual basis for his claim he failed to receive notice lacking, he also did not “explain how the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the alleged deprivation by the German court. To the extent” he contended the trial court violated his right to due process “by enforcing the German court order entered following a deprivation of notice, Benjamin offers no legal support for this position.” The court concluded he failed to meet “his burden to establish that he lacked proper notice of the German proceedings,” and as a result, it could not find “that the trial court deprived him of due process of law or erred by registering and enforcing the German custody order.” As to his argument that the German “order did not consider the children’s best interests and thus was not in substantial conformity with Michigan law[,]” the court noted that “the German court was not required to consider Michigan’s best-interest factors under the UCCJEA.”