Court Opinion

ID: 9658574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:05:03.271502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.765490
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, J.
(concurring). Although I agree with the result reached in the lead opinion, I write separately to more specifically state the reasons why I reach this result and to emphasize that the result is based upon the facts of this case.
In addition to the broad grant of original jurisdiction vested in the circuit courts by the constitution and statute, as discussed in the lead opinion, ante, p 821, I also note the Child Custody Act anticipates the possibility of a custody dispute between parents and third persons. Specifically, MCL 722.25; MSA 28.25.312(5) establishes a presumption that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the parent or parents rather than a third person or an agency unless the contrary is established by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the creation of such a presumption would be meaningless unless the Legislature anticipated the possibility that a custody action could be maintained involving parents and third persons.
Furthermore, the case at bar is distinguishable from the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559; 364 NW2d 665 (1984), since, as the lead opinion points out, in Ruppel the child *826was in the parents’ custody, ante, p 823, rather than in the custody of the third person who instituted the custody action. Indeed, the Ruppel holding specifically prevented the filing of a custody action where the child was in the custody of its parents at the time. Ruppel, supra at 565.
Accordingly, I would hold that where, as here, the child is in the physical custody of a third person, that third person may initiate a custody action. Therefore, I too would reverse.