White v. Harrison-White
Michigan Court of Appeals
760 N.W.2d 691 (2008)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
White (plaintiff) and Harrison-White (defendant) resided in Canada and had a son, Callum, in July 1997. White, Harrison-White, and Callum moved to Michigan and resided there for three years. In February 2004, Harrison-White and Callum returned to Canada and continued to reside there throughout the ensuing litigation, while White continued to reside in Michigan. White filed for divorce in Michigan state court. In July 2005, the court issued the initial custody determination in the matter, awarding joint legal custody and physical custody to Harrison-White, with parenting time to White, to take place in Canada and Michigan. White maintained a meaningful relationship with Callum, speaking on the telephone with him and regularly exercising parenting time, much of which took place in Michigan. Under Michigan’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a Michigan court that made an initial custody decision retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until two conditions were met: (1) the child and at least one parent no longer had a significant connection to the State of Michigan and (2) substantial evidence regarding the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships was unavailable in Michigan. Two years after the Michigan court’s initial custody determination, Harrison-White moved the Michigan court to find that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction in the matter, and the court granted the motion, finding that conditions one and two were met. White appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that White and Callum maintained a significant connection to the State of Michigan and thus condition one was unmet, meaning that the Michigan court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
