Opinion ID: 2152934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: child custody act

Text: The circuit court also ruled that the Child Custody Act was inapplicable. The judge had little guidance from Michigan law because this Court has not ruled heretofore as to the act's effect upon third parties or upon the rights of a child in Maria's situation. Therefore, we have considered the issue and find that the Child Custody Act applies to the facts of this case. MCLA 722.25; MSA 25.312(5) provides: When the dispute is between the parents, between agencies or between third parties, the best interests of the child shall control. When the dispute is between the parent or parents and an agency or a third person, it is presumed that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is established by clear and convincing evidence. (Emphasis added.) The statute clearly encompasses a third person[s]. Importantly, the emphasis is upon the best interests of the child rather than the property rights of others. The Act also provides for liberal construction and states: [16] This act shall apply to all circuit court child custody disputes and actions, whether original or incidental to other actions.    An application for a writ of habeas corpus or for a warrant in its place to obtain custody of a child shall not be granted unless it appears that this act is inadequate and ineffective to resolve the particular child custody dispute. Because the act purports in its title to declare the inherent rights of minor children, we look further to the means of identifying and protecting those rights. Many eloquent words have been written and spoken concerning the best interests of the child only to evolve into an analysis of rights of parents and others as to a piece of property. To minimize these regretable results, the Child Custody Act was passed and hailed as implanting in our statutes the humane and progressive mandate that children are people who have the same unalienable rights as all other citizens. As such, children are deserving of the right to those liberties in which physical, mental and emotional growth are essential. They are endowed with a right to the pursuit of happiness. The statute contains a rebuttable presumption that parental custody is in the best interests of the child. The critical question then becomes, [W]ho may attempt to overcome the presumption and how? If the act is what it purports to be, and does indeed look to the best interests of the child, we cannot under any analysis eliminate the Does from consideration for placement by the circuit court. They are third-party custodians with whom Maria has lived under color of a legal adoption placement. However, the circuit court did just that when it asserted superintending control over all proceedings in the Monroe County Probate Court which involved Maria Weldon and ordered her returned to her mother Dahlari. The judge said that the best interests of the child would not be applicable and likened Maria's situation to that of a kidnapped child: The Does, who appear faultless in this matter, claim that they have given Maria good care and she is happy and well-adjusted. They urge the Court to consider that it would be in Maria's best interest to leave her with them.