- Call 24/7 (800) 525-6386 Tap Here to Call Us
Three Hurdles to Clear Before a Michigan Custody Order Changes
A Michigan custody order is built to last, and the statute that allows it to be changed is arranged as a series of thresholds rather than a single question. A parent asking for a different arrangement has to clear each one in order, and the best-interest factors that people expect to argue first are reached last.
MCL 722.27(1)(c) permits a court to modify or amend its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances. It then bars the court from changing an established custodial environment unless clear and convincing evidence shows the change is in the child’s best interest. Two gates, in that sequence, and only then the factors.
Proper Cause or a Change of Circumstances
The first gate is the threshold showing. A motion to modify must rest on proper cause shown or on a change of circumstances, and a court that finds neither does not proceed to anything else. This is the provision that keeps a custody order from being relitigated every time a parent is unhappy with it.
The two phrases are alternatives, and they are not defined in the section. A change of circumstances points at something that has happened since the order was entered. Proper cause points at a reason substantial enough to warrant revisiting the order at all. Both are measured against the existing order rather than against the other parent’s preferences.
The gate stays open until the child turns 18, and, subject to MCL 552.605b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, until the child reaches 19 years and six months. That extension tracks the age to which support can continue for a child still in high school, which is why the two figures appear together.
Whether an Established Custodial Environment Exists
The second gate decides the standard of proof for everything that follows. The court shall not modify or amend its previous judgments or orders, or issue a new order, so as to change the established custodial environment of a child unless there is presented clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the child’s best interest.
The definition is statutory rather than judicial, and it turns on what the child does rather than on what either parent intends. The test asks whether, over an appreciable time, the child has naturally looked to a custodian for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort, with the child’s age, the physical setting, and both parties’ inclination toward permanency also in the balance. A parent can have created that environment without ever meaning to.
Whether such an environment exists is decided before the factors are weighed, because it sets the burden the moving parent carries. An environment can exist with both parents at once, and it can exist by virtue of an arrangement neither parent formally agreed to but both lived under. A temporary schedule that ran for a year is often the environment the statute is describing, which is covered in more depth on our Michigan child custody page.
Then, and Only Then, the Best-Interest Factors
The 12 lettered factors at MCL 722.23 govern the third stage. What has changed by the time a court reaches them is the burden. Where an established custodial environment would be altered, the moving parent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the child’s best interest, which is a materially heavier showing than the preponderance that governs an initial determination.
The same section adds a protection for a parent on active duty. Where a motion for change of custody is filed while a parent is on active duty, the court shall not consider that parent’s absence due to active duty status in a best-interest determination. A deployment does not become evidence against the deployed parent.
The factors are the same ones applied when custody was first decided, and the evidence that answers them is largely built from the period between the order and the motion. A parent contemplating a change is usually better served by documenting that period as it happens than by reconstructing it afterward. I often get asked what a parent should be doing in the year before a motion, and the honest answer is that they should be building the record the third gate will be decided on.
Why the Original Order Survives Appeal
The gates are reinforced by the standard on appeal. MCL 722.28 provides that, to expedite the resolution of a custody dispute by prompt and final adjudication, all orders and judgments of the circuit court shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial judge made findings of fact against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or committed a clear legal error on a major issue.
That is a deferential standard by design, and the statute says why. Finality is treated as a value in itself in custody cases, which means the trial court’s decision at each of the three gates is the decision that is most likely to stand.
Child-related provisions of a divorce judgment can be revised on the petition of either parent under MCL 552.17, as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children require. That authority runs through the same three gates when custody is what is being revised, and it does not replace them.
Most modification motions that fail do so at the first gate, before a factor is argued. Whether the threshold is met is a question worth answering honestly before a motion is filed. Call our office at (800) 525-6386 and we will walk through it with you.
Before Filing a Motion to Change Custody
A motion that clears the threshold and misjudges the burden can leave a parent worse positioned than before it was filed, because the record it creates is the record the next motion inherits. We handle Michigan family law matters at Neumann Law Group in circuit courts across the state, including the modification questions that follow a Michigan divorce. Call us at (800) 525-6386 or contact our office to arrange a consultation.