Court Opinion

ID: 9852304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:28:11.626857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:25.260561
License: Public Domain

Neff, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that it totally ignores the single most important issue in this dispute and, indeed, in any child custody matter: what is in the best interests of the children.
It must be noted that no determination was made by the Mississippi court, as would be required under Michigan law, as to whether an established custodial environment existed, MCL 722.27(1)(c); MSA 25.312(7)(1)(c), or whether a change of custody was in the best interests of the children, MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3). Our failure to remand for hearing on those matters may well mean that no determination of them is ever made.
i
The uccja governs the power of state courts to enforce custody orders by other states. It also governs the jurisdiction of Michigan courts to make initial child custody determinations and to modify custody orders. Thompson v Hair, 146 Mich App 561, 563; 381 NW2d 765 (1985), lv den 424 Mich 864 (1985).
Whether a court has jurisdiction to decide or modify a child custody matter under the uccja depends on whether the circumstances of the particular case fulfill one of the provisions conferring jurisdiction found in § 653(1) of the act. MCL 600.653; MSA 27A.653 states in pertinent part:
(1) A court of this state which is competent to *74decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree or judgment if any of the following exist:
(a) This state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding or had been the child’s home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state.
(b) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and his parents, or the child and at least 1 contestant, have a significant connection with this state and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
(c) The child is physically present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent.
(d) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with subdivisions (a), (b), or (c) or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child and it is in the best interest of the child that this court assume jurisdiction.
On July 8, 1988, the date plaintiff initiated the present litigation, both Michigan and Mississippi had jurisdiction over this matter under subsection (b) of the above statute. When § 653(l)(b) of the uccja produces concurrent jurisdiction in more than one state, the mechanisms provided in §§ 656 *75and 657 are generally used to ensure that only one state makes the custody decision. See 9 Uniform Laws Annotated, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 3, Comment, p 144. Thus, while Michigan could exercise concurrent jurisdiction under § 653(1)(b), the question becomes one whether the Michigan court should exercise that jurisdiction.
MCL 600.656; MSA 27A.656 provides in pertinent part:
(1) A court of this state shall not exercise its jurisdiction under sections 651 to 673 if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with sections 651 to 673, unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of the other state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons or unless temporary action by a court of this state is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent.
MCL 600.657; MSA 27A.657 also states in pertinent part:
(1) A court which has jurisdiction under sections 651 to 673 to make an initial or modification decree or judgment may decline to exercise its jurisdiction before making a decree or judgment if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
The Macomb Circuit Court stated that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise that jurisdiction. The court further found that, pursuant to §657, the Mississippi court was a more *76appropriate forum to decide the custody dispute in this matter. The trial court in Michigan also opined that any intervention on its part would contravene the purposes of the uccja.
ii
I believe that the trial court here erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 657 because, at the time plaintiff initiated the instant proceedings in the Macomb Circuit Court, a custody decree had already been rendered in Mississippi. Where a custody decree has already been rendered in one state, jurisdiction is determined by §§ 658 and 664. See 9 Uniform Laws Annotated, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 6, Comment, p 220.
MCL 600.658; MSA 27A.658 concerns the wrongful taking of a child from another state and is inapplicable here. MCL 600.664; MSA 27A.664, the provision in the uccja governing modification of foreign custody decrees or judgments, is applicable here, and states in pertinent part:
If a court of another state has made a custody decree or judgment, a court of this state shall not modify that decree or judgment unless it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree or judgment does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with sections 651 to 673 or has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree or judgment and the court of this state has jurisdiction. [MCL 600.664(1); MSA 27A.664(1).]
In this case, there is nothing to suggest that the Mississippi court, which issued the July 19, 1987, judgment of divorce and the December 14, 1987, *77modification of the divorce decree, declined to assume jurisdiction to modify its decree. To the contrary, by entering its July 11, 1988, order transferring custody of the parties’ children from plaintiff to defendant, the Mississippi court demonstrated that it was indeed assuming jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, if a court of this state is to modify the Mississippi judgment of divorce or the Mississippi modification of divorce judgment, it must be shown that the Mississippi court "does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with sections 651 to 673 . . . and that, the court of this state has jurisdiction.” See In re Danke, 169 Mich App 453, 457-458; 426 NW2d 740 (1988).
The clause "does not now have jurisdiction,” contained in MCL 600.664(1); MSA 27A.664(1), refers to the time when the petition to modify the foreign order was filed in Michigan. Thus, in this case, we look to whether the Mississippi court had jurisdiction under the uccja on July 8, 1988, which was the date on which plaintiff initiated the instant proceedings in the Macomb Circuit Court.
Because I would find that both the Michigan and the Mississippi courts had jurisdiction under §653(l)(b) of the uccja on July 8, 1988, as a general rule, the Macomb Circuit Court would be precluded by §664 from intervening in this matter. Exceptions to the general rule exist, however, where the rendering court failed to exercise jurisdiction in conformity with the uccja. Bull v Bull, 109 Mich App 328, 342; 311 NW2d 768 (1981). In Bull, supra, p 343, this Court stated:
[T]he entire basis of the Georgia change of custody determination was the defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s visitation rights without any consideration of what was in the best interests of the child. *78Such a procedure would not be in conformity with the requirements of uccja.
In this case, the Mississippi court found on the record at the June 29, 1988, hearing that there had been a material and substantial change in the circumstances of the parties since the rendition of the final judgment of divorce sufficient to allow a change of custody from the mother to the father. The Mississippi court then ordered a change of custody without taking into consideration the best interests of the children.
In exercising its discretion within the confines of the uccja, a court must consider not merely the literal wording of the statute but also its primary purpose, which is to define and stabilize the right to custody in the best interest of the child. EEB & JEB v DA, 89 NJ 595, 611; 446 A2d 871 (1982). I find particularly persuasive the following language from EEB & JEB, supra:
A custody dispute is more than a jurisdictional chess game in which winning depends on compliance with predetermined rules of play. A child is not a pawn. In exercising its discretion within the confines of uccja and pkpa [Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act], a court should consider not only the literal wording of the statutes but their purpose: to define and stabilize the right to custody in the best interest of the child.
The pervading concept of the uccja is that custody decisions are to be based on the best interests of the children. Awarding custody is not a reward for good behavior on the part of a parent; withholding custody is not a punishment. Those uses of custody focus on the wrong aspects of the dispute, the activities of the parents. The focus must be on what is best for the children. More*79over, vindication of the authority of the court to enforce its orders cannot be a valid basis for determining which parent has custody.
Because the Mississippi court failed to exercise jurisdiction in conformity with the uccja by not taking into consideration the best interests of the children before ordering a change of custody, I believe that the Macomb Circuit Court erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.
hi
I would reverse the September 23, 1988, opinion and order entered by the trial court and remand this case with directions to the trial court to accept jurisdiction and to conduct a full evidentiary hearing and determine, first, whether an established custodial environment exists, MCL 722.27(1)(c); MSA 25.312(7)(1)(c), and, second, whether a change of custody is in the best interests of the children, MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3).
I would further instruct the lower court that, if an established custodial environment does exist, before a change of custody may be ordered, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that such a change of custody would be in the best interests of the children. If an established custodial environment does not exist, a change of custody may be ordered after a showing by a mere preponderance of the evidence that a change of custody would be in the best interests of the children. In determining the best interests of the children, the trial court must consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in MCL 722.23; MSA 25.312(3). In re Danke, supra, p 460.
The majority opinion, while claiming otherwise, merely perpetuates the compounded errors of the lower courts in Michigan and Mississippi by failing *80to require any action to ensure that the best interests of the children are properly considered. To say, as the majority does, that plaintiff retains her full range of appeal rights in Mississippi begs the question. A determination of what custody arrangement is in the best interests of the children should be accomplished as quickly as possible. By declining to exercise jurisdiction, the majority ensures unnecessary delay and risks that there will never be a determination of the best-interests issue. I simply find that result to be unacceptable and not required by any reasonable interpretation of the uccja.