Yes. Michigan law allows certain third parties to seek custody of a child, but the right to bring a custody case is limited by the Michigan Child Custody Act. Simply having a close relationship with a child—or even having cared for the child for a substantial period of time—does not automatically give a non-parent the right to file a custody action.
Michigan law recognizes two important routes to third-party standing. First, under MCL 722.26b, a guardian or limited guardian generally has standing to bring a custody action, subject to the statutory limitations applicable to limited guardians. Second, MCL 722.26c allows a third person to bring an original custody action in specified circumstances. One applies when the child was placed for adoption with the third person, the placement order remains in effect, and the child has resided with that person for at least six months. The other is particularly important in cases involving unmarried parents: the biological parents must never have been married to each other; the parent with custody must have died or be missing; the other parent must not have been awarded legal custody by court order; and the third person must be related to the child within the fifth degree by marriage, blood, or adoption. See MCL 722.26c(1)(b); Unthank v Wolfe, 282 Mich App 40 (2008).
Standing, however, is only the first hurdle. Once a third party is properly before the court, Michigan law provides a natural parent with a strong statutory presumption. Under MCL 722.25(1), when a custody dispute is between a parent and a third person, the court must presume that the child’s best interests are served by awarding custody to the parent unless the contrary is established by clear and convincing evidence. In Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247 (2009), the Michigan Supreme Court held that this parental presumption controls over the presumption favoring an established custodial environment. The third party therefore must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child’s best interests require placement with the third party. See also Heltzel v Heltzel, 248 Mich App 1 (2001); Frowner v Smith, 296 Mich App 374 (2012); Howard v Howard, 310 Mich App 488 (2015).
That burden can be met. The court considers the statutory best-interest factors in MCL 722.23, and the relevant factors, taken together, must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that custody with the third person is in the child’s best interests. Howard, 310 Mich App at 494–498. Importantly, Hunter rejected the idea that a court must first make a separate finding that the parent is “fit” before the parental presumption applies. A parent’s fitness is considered as part of the best-interest analysis. The Michigan Judicial Institute specifically recognizes that Hunter conflicts with the earlier fitness analysis stated in In re Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41 (2009). Anjoski provided the factual setting for this issue, including its discussion of a third party who lacked standing but remained involved after a custody dispute had been properly initiated.
There is another important point from Anjoski that remains significant. A person who lacks standing cannot start a custody dispute or intervene simply because that person believes custody would be in the child’s best interests. However, once a custody dispute has been properly initiated by a party with standing, MCL 722.27(1)(a) permits the court to award custody “to others” when doing so is in the child’s best interests. Thus, a lack of standing prevents a third party from initiating the case, but it does not necessarily prevent the court from ultimately awarding custody to that person in an existing custody proceeding. In re Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41, 52–53 (2009).
For families considering a third-party custody case, the facts surrounding standing are critical. A grandparent, stepparent, relative, family friend, or other caregiver may have a compelling relationship with a child, but that relationship alone is not enough. The first question is whether Michigan law gives that person standing to ask the court for custody. If standing exists, the next question is whether the evidence is strong enough to overcome the statutory parental presumption by clear and convincing evidence. These are demanding requirements, and the outcome can turn on the precise custody orders, guardianship status, family relationships, and circumstances affecting the child’s best interests.
Michigan Authorities Referenced: MCL 722.23; MCL 722.25(1); MCL 722.26b; MCL 722.26c; MCL 722.27(1)(a); Hunter v Hunter, 484 Mich 247 (2009); Heltzel v Heltzel, 248 Mich App 1 (2001); Frowner v Smith, 296 Mich App 374 (2012); Howard v Howard, 310 Mich App 488 (2015); Unthank v Wolfe, 282 Mich App 40 (2008); In re Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41 (2009).
When Third-Party Custody Becomes a Legal Issue
Third-party custody disputes can involve complicated questions of standing, parental rights, established custodial environments, and the child’s best interests. If you are a relative or caregiver seeking custody—or a parent facing a third-party custody claim—experienced family-law litigation counsel can make an important difference.
The Kronzek Firm is a family-law litigation firm serving clients in Lansing, Michigan, and Oakland County, Michigan. Our attorneys handle complex custody and family-law disputes and can help you understand your rights, the applicable Michigan law, and the legal strategies available in your circumstances.
📞 Our highly respected attorneys have fought for thousands of Michigan clients for more than 30 years. You can reach our Lansing office 24/7 by calling (517) 886-1000 or by email at contactus@kronzek.law. Our team is available 24/7 for emergency consultation.
[Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for personalized guidance.]