Luke Nathaneal Bowman v. Chelsey Ann Bowman
331870
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Parents married in 2009; two children (born 2011 in Georgia and 2013). Family lived in Michigan, briefly lived in Wisconsin, then separated residences among Michigan, Indiana, and Georgia in 2015. Timing of residence disputed.
- Defendant (Chelsey Bowman) filed a Georgia custody complaint and obtained an ex parte temporary custody order on December 11, 2015.
- Plaintiff (Luke Bowman) filed for divorce in Michigan on January 8, 2016 and sought return of the children and sole custody.
- Michigan trial court declined to exercise initial custody jurisdiction, concluding Georgia was the more appropriate forum under the UCCJEA; it did not communicate with the Georgia court.
- Michigan Court of Appeals granted leave, reviewed UCCJEA application, affirmed that Georgia could exercise jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJEA, but remanded because the Michigan court failed to comply with the statutory duty to communicate with the other state court under MCL 722.1206(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan should have applied MCL 722.1201 (initial jurisdiction) despite a Georgia custody proceeding having already commenced | Bowman: Michigan was the proper initial forum and children should be returned to Michigan | Chelsey: Georgia filed first; therefore Georgia custody proceeding controls | Court: Trial court erred to begin with MCL 722.1201 but the correct inquiry was under MCL 722.1206 because Georgia filed first |
| Whether Georgia had jurisdiction "substantially in conformity" with the UCCJEA so Michigan must decline | Bowman: Michigan is home state or more appropriate forum; return children | Chelsey: Georgia had significant connections (birthplace, family, schooling, church) and filed first | Court: Georgia had jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJEA; Michigan properly declined to exercise jurisdiction |
| Whether Georgia satisfied the MCL 722.1201(1)(b) tests (significant connection and substantial evidence available) | Bowman: Michigan also had connections; Georgia lacks home-state ties within six months | Chelsey: Children and mother had meaningful, ongoing ties to Georgia; evidence (family witnesses, school, church) available there | Court: Sufficient significant connection and substantial evidence existed in Georgia; failure to expressly address subsection (ii) was harmless |
| Whether Michigan complied with required UCCJEA procedures when a foreign custody proceeding exists (communication/stay/dismiss) | Bowman: Michigan should decide custody (asked for return) | Chelsey: Michigan should stay/dismiss and communicate with Georgia court | Court: Michigan erred by not communicating with Georgia court per MCL 722.1206(2); remand for required communication and, if Georgia does not defer, dismissal of Michigan custody proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Belcher, 269 Mich. App. 247 (discusses UCCJEA scope and jurisdictional analysis)
- Cheesman v. Williams, 311 Mich. App. 147 (standard of review for exercising UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich. App. 1 (clarifies clear legal error standard)
- White v. Harrison-White, 280 Mich. App. 383 (interpreting "significant connection" under the UCCJEA)
- Atchison v. Atchison, 256 Mich. App. 531 (noting Michigan adopted the UCCJEA)
- Croft v. Croft, 298 Ga. App. 303 (noting Georgia adopted the UCCJEA)