Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by the biological parents against a decision of the Kent Circuit Court, which denied their motion to vacate prior custody orders regarding their child, who had been living with a third party since infancy. The defendants contended that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a third-party custody petition. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the third party had standing to petition for custody under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., due to their established living arrangement with the child and the absence of timely objections from the biological parents. The court addressed the issue of whether third-party custody petitions require findings of parental unfitness or the existence of divorce proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Ruppel v Lesner. It concluded that circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over such disputes, focusing on standing rather than jurisdiction. The court also considered the presumption favoring parental custody but upheld the prior stipulation agreed upon by the parties, noting the defendants' failure to contest it for several years. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the custody order, maintaining the current custody arrangement.
Legal Issues Addressed
Presumption Favoring Parental Custodysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted the presumption favoring parental custody, but recognized the third-party's standing due to the lack of timely objections and the established living arrangement.
Reasoning: The court concluded that the circuit court properly recognized the third-party's standing in this case, aligning with the Child Custody Act’s presumption favoring parental custody unless clear evidence suggests otherwise.
Standing to Petition for Custody under the Child Custody Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established that a third party living with a child has standing to petition for custody, even if there are no existing divorce or maintenance proceedings or a finding of parental unfitness.
Reasoning: The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, establishing that a third party living with a child has standing to petition for custody under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in Child Custody Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that challenges to third-party custody petitions relate to standing, not jurisdiction, affirming that circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody disputes.
Reasoning: Judge Marilyn Kelly's opinion in Solomon emphasized that the matter of whether a third party can file for custody relates to standing, not jurisdiction, affirming that circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody disputes.
Timeliness of Jurisdictional Objectionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendants' failure to timely object to the jurisdiction of the court in the initial custody stipulation rendered their later challenge invalid.
Reasoning: The ruling was affirmed. Additional notes clarify that the Solomon judgment was vacated for further consideration of standing, and that a related decision in Bowie v Arder, which upheld the dismissal of a third-party petition, did not create binding precedent due to its obiter dictum nature.