The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); “Home state” (MCL 722.1102(g)): Determination that another state is a more appropriate forum; Relevant factors (MCL 722.1207(2)); Harboring error as an appellate parachute

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that another state was a more convenient forum and dismissing this child-custody case under the UCCJEA. Plaintiff-father filed a complaint in the trial court “seeking to establish custody, parenting time, and support.” He alleged that he lived here but defendant-mother and the parties’ children now resided in Utah. The court noted that “before the children’s departure to Utah in [6/24], Michigan was their home state because they lived in Michigan most, if not all, of their lives. Moreover, defendant conceded that Michigan was the children’s home state. Accordingly, Michigan was the children’s home state within six months of the filing of this suit in” 12/24. While the trial court acknowledged Michigan’s jurisdiction, it “could still decline to exercise its jurisdiction” based on a determination “that another state is a more appropriate forum.” Its written order “indicated that it communicated with the commissioner involved in the Utah litigation, and that the courts in both states agreed that Utah was a more convenient forum.” While failing “to consider each ‘relevant’ factor under MCL 722.1207(2) and . . . to make explicit findings may warrant a remand for a reevaluation of the factors[,]” the court concluded that “the trial court was aware of the factors set forth in MCL 722.1207(2), having delineated them in its opinion. Moreover, as [it] aptly noted, the key or relevant issues involved the issuance of the PPO based on defendant’s claims of domestic violence, MCL 722.1207(2)(a), the amount of time the children resided in Utah, MCL 722.1207(2)(b), plaintiff’s agreement to proceed with the divorce action in Utah including consent to child issues surrounding parenting time, insurance, and expenses, MCL 722.1207(2)(e), and the nature and location of the evidence to resolve the litigation where multiple law enforcement and child protection agencies in Utah had pending investigations, were familiar with the parties, and more apt to resolve these issues more quickly. MCL 722.1207(2)(f), (g), and (h). Although the trial court did not identify the individual factors when rendering its factual findings,” it was apparent that it “considered the ‘relevant’ factors in its ruling.” Affirmed.