Court Opinion

ID: 9736770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:05:58.293094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:08.792768
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq., creates an independent cause of action whether the child resides with one of the parents or with a third party. The Supreme Court has held that the Child Custody Act does not give a party substantive rights to custody of a child. Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565; 364 NW2d 665 (1984). It authorizes forms of relief and sets forth procedures and creates standards for resolving custody claims. Id.
I agree with the line of cases that hold that in the absence of some other basis for the court to assert jurisdiction over the minor child, such as previous judicial intervention in divorce proceedings or neglect proceedings, the circuit court may *250not entertain an action for custody instituted by a nonparent. Id.; Doss v Baker, 173 Mich App 546, 548; 434 NW2d 190 (1988); Marshall v Beal, 158 Mich App 582, 589; 405 NW2d 101 (1986); Hastings v Hastings, 154 Mich App 96, 101; 397 NW2d 232 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 859 (1987). A nonparent may not create a child custody dispute under the act simply by filing a circuit court complaint alleging that the child’s best interests are served by giving custody to the nonparent. Ruppel, supra, p 566; Doss, supra, pp 548-549.
I would find that no circumstances creating an independent basis for jurisdiction are found in this case and vacate the trial court’s order.