Postjudgment custody dispute; Grandmother’s motion to intervene; Standing; In re Anjoski; The Child Custody Act (CCA); MCL 722.26b; Distinguishing Howard v Howard; Limitation on who may initiate a custody action; MCL 722.26c; “Third person” (MCL 722.22(k)); Effect of a pending custody dispute; MCL 722.27(1)(a)

The court held that the trial court reached the correct result in denying appellant-grandmother’s motion to intervene in this postjudgment custody dispute because she did not establish standing under MCL 722.26b or 722.26c. While neither parent opposed her motion, the trial court denied it on the basis that she did not meet “the requirements of MCL 722.26c(1)(a) and (1)(b).” On appeal, the court noted that “MCL 722.26c governs when a third person may initiate custody proceedings.” But when a custody dispute is already pending, “MCL 722.27(1)(a) authorizes the [trial] court to award custody to a third person.” Reading the provisions together, they “serve different functions. MCL 722.26c limits who may initiate a custody action, while MCL 722.27(1) governs the court’s authority to place a child with a third party once a custody dispute is properly before it. A third party’s inability to satisfy MCL 722.26c therefore bars the party from initiating a custody action. It does not preclude a trial court from resolving a pending custody dispute by awarding custody to a third person.” The court found that “the trial court’s stated rationale for denying the motion was imprecise” but that this did not “resolve whether grandmother was entitled to intervene.” As the court concluded in Anjoski, the CCA limits standing for third parties to two circumstances. As she was not the child’s guardian, MCL 722.26b did “not confer standing on her.” And she did not “dispute that she cannot satisfy MCL 722.26c(1)(a) or (b).” She did not challenge the trial court’s findings in that regard on appeal. While “MCL 722.27(1)(a) authorizes a trial court to award custody to a third party—irrespective of the third party’s standing—if it determines that doing so is in the child’s best interests, a third party who seeks to become a party to a pending custody dispute must nonetheless establish standing under MCL 722.26b or MCL 722.26c.” Under Anjoski, absent “standing, ‘a third party . . . cannot become a party to a custody dispute,’ even one already pending between proper parties.” The court noted that its conclusion did not “preclude the trial court from awarding grandmother custody under MCL 722.27(1)(a) if it determines that doing so is in” the child’s best interests. Affirmed.