Cheesman v. Williams
311 Mich. App. 147
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents (Cheesman and Williams) are unmarried; affidavit of parentage signed in 2003; child KC born June 11, 2003.
- KC lived with both parents until 2009; after incarceration and release, KC lived with defendant and moved between Michigan, Ohio, and Georgia from 2011–2013.
- Plaintiff filed a Michigan custody complaint on August 19, 2013; KC was physically present in Michigan at filing but had not lived in Michigan for the prior six consecutive months.
- Trial court dismissed the Michigan action, concluding Michigan lacked UCCJEA “home state” jurisdiction and, alternatively, was an inconvenient forum.
- Lower court record contained limited evidence about (a) the precise residency timeline for KC, (b) whether Michigan (or Ohio/Georgia) had a “significant connection,” and (c) the MCL 722.1207 inconvenient‑forum factors.
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for additional factual development on UCCJEA subsections and for proper consideration of inconvenient‑forum factors and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (MCL 722.1201) beyond "home state" | Michigan could exercise jurisdiction under § 1201(1)(b) or (d) because plaintiff maintained significant connections and evidence in Michigan | Jurisdiction lies in the state where child resides (Ohio/Georgia); Michigan was not KC’s home state | Trial court erred by failing to consider § 1201(1)(b) and (d); remand for factfinding on significant‑connection and substantial‑evidence factors |
| Whether trial court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under MCL 722.1207 | Trial court abused discretion: did not take testimony, relied on incomplete record, and used ex parte info | Court should dismiss in favor of more appropriate forum (Ohio) given child’s residence | Trial court abused discretion by not following § 1207 procedures; must consider each § 1207(2) factor, allow parties to submit information, and, if appropriate, stay proceedings rather than dismiss |
| Whether reliance on an ex parte communication required reversal | Ex parte faxed residency statement prejudiced plaintiff and required reversal | Any consideration was harmless because parties received the document and disputed its contents on the record | Issue not preserved below and, in any event, any error was harmless; no reversal on that basis |
| Appropriate remedy for trial‑court procedural/factual failures | Remand for full factfinding and compliance with UCCJEA and § 1207 procedures | Affirm dismissal and direct plaintiff to Ohio | Court reversed and remanded for further evidence and findings; did not retain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Wolkowitz, 486 Mich. 356 (de novo review applies to UCCJEA jurisdictional questions)
- Nash v. Salter, 280 Mich. App. 104 (trial court discretion whether to exercise UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- White v. Harrison-White, 280 Mich. App. 383 (construction of “significant connection” under UCCJEA)
- Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (clear legal error standard for misapplication of law)
- Grievance Adm’r v. Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235 (dangers and implications of ex parte communications)
- Rittershaus v. Rittershaus, 273 Mich. App. 462 (remand for failure to make required factual findings)
- Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin, 288 Mich. App. 143 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)