Modification of joint custody; Inclusion of a “tie-breaking authority” provision in a Georgia custody order; The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Noting that Michigan law does not permit a parent to serve as a tie breaker, the court concluded the circuit court did not err by reaffirming “that the parties have joint-legal custody and” stripping out the tie-breaking provision in their Georgia custody order. They had joint-legal custody of their child under the “Georgia court order. In that state, a court can designate one parent as having ‘tie-breaking authority’ in the case of a dispute, and the Georgia court designated” defendant-mother as the tie breaker. When the parties moved to Michigan with the child, defendant unsuccessfully sought to modify the order to give her sole-legal custody. She argued “the circuit court’s decision was an improper change of custody because she maintains that the Georgia order effectively granted her sole-legal custody.” Plaintiff-father disagreed. The court determined he had the stronger position. “First, the language of the Georgia order plainly suggests that the Georgia court meant for the parties to have joint-legal custody.” Second, the court found that “authority to break a tie under the Georgia order speaks only to when the parents have an explicit disagreement over a major, non-emergency decision involving the child.” The court concluded it was “clear that the Georgia court granted the parties joint-legal custody of the child, and only in the limited circumstance of an explicit disagreement between the parents involving a subset of matters affecting the child, did the Georgia court grant defendant authority to break the tie.” Defendant contended “the circuit court improperly changed the custody because the Georgia order should be enforced with the same effect in Michigan under the UCCJEA.” But she herself recognized “that a tie-breaker provision is not permissible under Michigan law—what she really wants, and asks for, is sole legal custody, something different than what is provided under the Georgia order.” There was no dispute “this state was the home state for the child and both parents at the time of the proceeding. Thus, the circuit court had the jurisdiction to modify the Georgia order under the UCCJEA because this matter was an initial child-custody determination for purposes of this state, and both parties and the child lived in this state at the time of the proceeding. The circuit court modified the Georgia order by preserving the main objective of the Georgia order (joint-legal custody) and omitting the one aspect of that order that was inconsistent with Michigan law (tie-breaking authority).” Affirmed.