## Facts

- The parties married in Ontario in 1993; their son was born in Ontario in 1997.
- The family moved to Rockford, Michigan in 2001 and lived there together for about three years.
- In February 2004, the mother and child returned to Ontario and continued to reside there; the father remained in Michigan.
- The father filed for divorce in Michigan in March 2004.
- A July 2004 temporary order provided alternating weekend parenting time, with visits alternating between Ontario and Michigan, plus holiday and vacation time.
- A July 2005 divorce judgment awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, and liberal parenting time to the father in both Michigan and Ontario.
- Parenting-time provisions were amended to include repeated, structured periods in which the father exercised weekend parenting time in Michigan (including consecutive weekends in the United States with periodic weekends in Ontario).
- In 2006, the mother moved for an order declaring Michigan lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under MCL 722.1202(1)(a) (UCCJEA); the trial court granted the motion.
- The father appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the child and at least one parent no longer had a “significant connection” with Michigan under MCL 722.1202(1)(a).
2. Whether substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships was no longer available in Michigan.
3. Whether Michigan therefore lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody and parenting-time matters.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the order finding Michigan lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held the father and child still had a significant connection with Michigan because the father lived in Michigan and exercised regular, meaningful parenting time there under court-ordered schedules.
- The court held substantial evidence remained available in Michigan, including evidence generated by ongoing parenting time and evidence from the child’s prior multi-year residence in Michigan.
- Because MCL 722.1202(1)(a) requires both a lack of significant connection and a lack of substantial evidence, the trial court erred in relinquishing jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under MCL 722.1202(1)(a), a Michigan court that made an initial custody determination retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until it determines both that (1) the child and a parent no longer have a significant connection with Michigan and (2) substantial evidence about the child is no longer available in Michigan.
- A child’s move to another jurisdiction does not, by itself, end exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; meaningful, ongoing parent-child contact in Michigan may satisfy the “significant connection” requirement.
- Regularly exercised parenting time in Michigan and the continued residence of a parent in Michigan may support continued jurisdiction, particularly when they generate evidence relevant to custody and parenting time.
- The “significant connection” and “substantial evidence” requirements are conjunctive; failure to prove either element prevents loss of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that Michigan retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the father’s ongoing Michigan residence and regularly exercised Michigan parenting time maintained a significant connection and ensured substantial evidence remained available in Michigan, making the trial court’s jurisdictional relinquishment improper.


White v. Harrison-White, 760 N.W.2d 691 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)