Michigan uses Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.. Courts apply best-interests factors under the Child Custody Act (§ 722.23), including emotional ties, capacity to provide, stability, moral fitness, and domestic violence. Joint custody must be considered; courts may award joint legal and/or physical custody when in the child’s best interests. That is what separates Michigan child custody and parenting time from a generic national summary. Read Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.21 to 722.31 before the background sections below. Relocation: A parent seeking to change the child’s legal residence generally must follow the 100-mile rule / domicile-change procedures and show the move serves the child’s best interests. Modification: Proper cause or a change of circumstances is required to revisit a custody order; parenting-time modifications use a somewhat lighter standard in some postures.
Legal custody, physical custody, and parenting time
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.
Joint custody must be considered; courts may award joint legal and/or physical custody when in the child’s best interests.
Relocation with a child
A parent seeking to change the child’s legal residence generally must follow the 100-mile rule / domicile-change procedures and show the move serves the child’s best interests.
Modifying a Michigan custody order
Proper cause or a change of circumstances is required to revisit a custody order; parenting-time modifications use a somewhat lighter standard in some postures.
A concrete Michigan scenario
Here is one way the Michigan pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
Two parents in Michigan disagree about where the child lives during the school week, and one wants to move.
- Use the labels Michigan actually uses: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody..
- Apply the best-interests factors: Courts apply best-interests factors under the Child Custody Act (§ 722.23), including emotional ties, capacity to provide, stability, moral fitness, and domestic violence.
- Check any parenting presumption: Joint custody must be considered; courts may award joint legal and/or physical custody when in the child’s best interests.
- If a move is proposed: A parent seeking to change the child’s legal residence generally must follow the 100-mile rule / domicile-change procedures and show the move serves the child’s best interests. Later changes follow: Proper cause or a change of circumstances is required to revisit a custody order; parenting-time modifications use a somewhat lighter standard in some postures.
Custody is addressed in divorce or a custody action. Friend of the Court investigations are common. Final judgments allocate legal and physical custody and parenting time.
How custody cases typically move in Michigan
Custody is addressed in divorce or a custody action. Friend of the Court investigations are common. Final judgments allocate legal and physical custody and parenting time.
Related Michigan guides
Case law: custody and parenting time in Michigan
Nicole D. Rivette v. Andrew Thomas Rose-Molina
Nicole D. Rivette v. Andrew Thomas Rose-Molina, 278 Mich. App. 327 (2008)
…al court’s order denying his amended petition for change of custody and other relief. Because both the referee and the trial court erred by making a custody determination without consideration of the statutory best-interest factors, we reverse. On appeal, defendant argues that the referee erred by not making findings of fact or considering the best-interest factors in determini…
Nicole D. Rivette v. Andrew Thomas Rose-Molina is worth reading on Michigan child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "Because both the referee and the trial court erred by making a custody determination without consideration of the statutory best-interest factors, we reverse." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Baker v. Baker
Baker v. Baker, 411 Mich. 567 (1981)
…ard, Bauer & Mazrum for defendant. RYAN, J. This is a child custody case whose subject is an 11-year-old boy, the son of divorced parents. Our order granting leave to appeal obligates us to answer two questions: 1. Whether, on the facts of this case, there existed at the time of trial an established custodial *573 environment from which the trial court was by statute forbidden…
On child custody, Baker v. Baker speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Bauer & Mazrum for defendant. RYAN, J. This is a child custody case whose subject is an 11-year-old boy, the son of divorced parents. Our order granting leave to appeal obligates us to answer two questions: 1." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Harvey v. Harvey
Harvey v. Harvey, 470 Mich. 186 (2004)
…ies agreed that the friend of the court would determine the custody of their children and that the circuit court could not review the decision. Honoring this, the circuit court entered the friend of the court’s recommended order awarding sole custody of the children to defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for a hearing to review the matter. The Court of Appeals vacated the ci…
Practitioners open Harvey v. Harvey when Michigan child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Honoring this, the circuit court entered the friend of the court’s recommended order awarding sole custody of the children to defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for a hearing to review the matter." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Jason Andrew GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebekah Marie GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellee.
M. J. Kelly, J. *114In this child custody case, plaintiff, Jason Griffin, appeals as of right the trial court order denying his motion to change custody of the parties' minor child and granting the motion to change custody filed by defendant, Rebekah Griffin.1 Because the trial court erred by applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard instead…
Practitioners open Jason Andrew GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rebekah Marie GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellee. when Michigan child custody turns on the distinction in this sentence: "M. J. Kelly, J. *114In this child custody case, plaintiff, Jason Griffin, appeals as of right the trial court order denying his motion to change custody of the parties' minor child and granting the motion to change custody filed by defendant, Rebekah Griffin." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Stevens v. Stevens
Stevens v. Stevens, 86 Mich. App. 258 (1978)
…trial court orders. One dated November 2, 1977, transferred custody of appellants’ nephew, Todd Stevens, to plaintiff, Katherine Stevens, Todd’s natural mother. The other order, dated March 22, 1978, modified plaintiff’s visitation rights. Todd Richard Stevens was born on June 29, 1972, to Katherine Stevens, plaintiff herein, and David Stevens. Katherine filed for divorce in Ja…
Stevens v. Stevens is worth reading on Michigan child custody because the court put the point in its own words: "One dated November 2, 1977, transferred custody of appellants’ nephew, Todd Stevens, to plaintiff, Katherine Stevens, Todd’s natural mother. The other order, dated March 22, 1978, modified plaintiff’s visitation rights." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Deel v. Deel
Deel v. Deel, 113 Mich. App. 556 (1982)
Per Curiam. This case presents a child custody dispute. Defendant has appealed by right from the trial court’s order granting custody to the child’s father, Edgar R. Deel. The subject of the dispute is Edgar Deel, Jr., the minor child of the plaintiff and the defendant. Because the child shares his father’s name he was referred to at trial as "little Eddie”…
On child custody, Deel v. Deel speaks to the Michigan dispute in this passage: "Per Curiam. This case presents a child custody dispute. Defendant has appealed by right from the trial court’s order granting custody to the child’s father, Edgar R. Deel. The subject of the dispute is Edgar Deel, Jr., the minor child of the plaintiff and the defendant." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Key takeaways
- Best-interests standard: Courts apply best-interests factors under the Child Custody Act (§ 722.
- Labels used in Michigan: Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody..
- Parenting-time posture: Joint custody must be considered; courts may award joint legal and/or physical custody when in the child’s best interests.
- Relocation: A parent seeking to change the child’s legal residence generally must follow the 100-mile rule / domicile-change procedures and show the move serves the child’s best interests.
- Modification: Proper cause or a change of circumstances is required to revisit a custody order; parenting-time modifications use a somewhat lighter standard in some postures.
- Primary authority: Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.21 to 722.31.
Best-interests factors in Michigan
Courts apply best-interests factors under the Child Custody Act (§ 722.23), including emotional ties, capacity to provide, stability, moral fitness, and domestic violence.
Frequently asked questions
What does Michigan call “custody”?
Legal custody and physical custody; parenting time schedules implement physical custody.
Can I move out of state with my child?
A parent seeking to change the child’s legal residence generally must follow the 100-mile rule / domicile-change procedures and show the move serves the child’s best interests.
How do I change an existing custody order in Michigan?
Proper cause or a change of circumstances is required to revisit a custody order; parenting-time modifications use a somewhat lighter standard in some postures.
This guide covers Michigan custody law as of 2026. Verify the live statute and any local parenting-time guidelines before relying on this summary.