Custody; The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); “Home state” jurisdiction; MCL 722.1201 (§ 201); MCL 722.1102(g); Temporary emergency jurisdiction; MCL 722.1204(1) (§ 204); Declining jurisdiction under MCL 722.1207 (§ 207) (inconvenient forum); Cheesman v Williams; Declining jurisdiction under MCL 722.1208(1) (§ 208) (unjustifiable conduct)

The court concluded that “only Michigan could have exercised exclusive, continuing jurisdiction at the time of the proceedings leading to this appeal[,]” and that the factual record was insufficient for §§ 207 or 208 to serve as a basis for the trial court to decline jurisdiction. Thus, it held that the trial court committed legal error in declining jurisdiction and dismissing plaintiff-mother’s case seeking sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child (GRR). On 6/23/25, defendant-father filed a complaint in Louisiana, seeking “emergency ex parte relief in the form of sole legal and physical custody of GRR.” His request was granted the same day, and a hearing scheduled for 7/28/25. At an emergency child protective hearing held in Otsego County on 7/3/25, he was granted custody. Before that date, “GRR had only ever resided in Michigan. She has resided in Louisiana since early [7/25].” Plaintiff argued “that a child’s initial custody determination must take place in the child’s home state unless the home state declines to exercise home-state jurisdiction because another state would be a more appropriate forum. However, the trial court made no such findings.” Thus, she asked the court to “reverse and remand for proper determinations of jurisdiction and related issues pursuant to the” UCCJEA. It agreed. “Because no child-custody proceedings concerning GRR were commenced after her arrival in Louisiana, Michigan is considered GRR’s home state under the UCCJEA.” Turning to § 204, the court found that the Louisiana court’s initial 6/23/25 order “was not a valid exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction under MCL 722.1204(1) because GRR was not present in” Louisiana at the time. But by the time the Louisiana court held its hearing on 7/28/25, GRR was living there with him. While the Louisiana court’s 7/30/25 order effectively provided “that it will become a final child-custody determination, exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to § 204 can only be exercised when ‘a child-custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under sections 201 to 203.’” As of 7/28/25, “child-custody proceedings had already been commenced in Michigan, which had home-state jurisdiction under § 201. Therefore, § 204 could not serve as a basis for Louisiana to exercise exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.” Reversed and remanded.