WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5212

Family law: child custody; factors determining best interest of child in joint custody; include equal time with both parents as a factor. Amends secs. 6a & 7a of 1970 PA 91 (MCL 722.26a & 722.27a). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5211'25, HB 5213'25

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 25 co-sponsors

Michigan bill shifts default to equal joint custody with strong notice, requiring courts to presume equal parenting time and consider joint custody unless clear evidence it’s not b

referred to second reading
#familylaw:childcustody
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5212

Summary — HB 5212 (Child Custody Act amendments)

Bill: HB 5212 (introduced Mar 14, 2025; bill electronically reproduced 11/04/2025)
Subject: Family law — child custody (amends 1970 PA 91, sections 6a & 7a; MCL 722.26a & 722.27a)
Tie-bar: HB 5211'25 and HB 5213'25

Purpose / intent

To change Michigan’s Child Custody Act to (1) require courts to advise parents about joint custody and a presumption in favor of equal or approximately equal parenting time in custody disputes, (2) strengthen the presumptions favoring joint custody and parenting time agreed to by parents, and (3) require a written notice about those rights be served with pleadings in paternity, custody, divorce with minor child, or support actions.

Key provisions

  • Notice requirement: At filing of a paternity, custody, divorce with minor child, or support action, the court must serve a notice with pleadings informing parties they have a right to joint custody and equal or approximately equal parenting time, and giving a definition of “joint custody.”
  • Presumption of equal parenting time: In disputes between parents, the court must presume equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interests unless the contrary is established by analysis of the 12 statutory best-interest factors (MCL 722.23).
  • Joint custody requests: At either parent’s request, the court must consider joint custody and state on the record reasons for granting or denying it. If parents agree to joint custody, the court must award it unless there is clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the child’s best interests.
  • Definition / scope of joint custody: The statute specifies joint custody may mean (a) alternating residence for equal or approximately equal periods, and/or (b) shared decision-making on major child welfare decisions.
  • Parenting time rules: Parenting time must be granted to promote a strong relationship with both parents; if parents agree to a schedule, the court must adopt it unless clear and convincing evidence shows it’s not in the child’s best interests. A parent’s right to parenting time can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of risk to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health.
  • Child support: Joint custody does not eliminate support obligations; courts may order modified support for housing needs in limited circumstances; joint custody alone is not grounds to modify an existing support order.
  • Existing protections retained: Provisions denying parenting time to individuals convicted of certain sexual offenses or found by clear and convincing evidence to have committed nonconsensual sexual penetration remain in place.

Who is affected

  • Parents involved in paternity, custody, divorce with minor children, or child support proceedings in Michigan
  • Children whose custody, parenting time, or support arrangements are at issue
  • Family courts (procedural duties to provide notice and make specific findings)
  • Potentially child-support calculations and enforcement practices

Procedural status / history

  • Filed: Mar 14, 2025
  • Committee hearings, substitute considered, reported favorably (Apr–May 2025); placed on General State Calendar (May 15, 2025)
  • Bill electronically reproduced and reintroduced/recorded: Nov 4–5, 2025; referred to Committee on Judiciary

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Shifts default toward equal or approximately equal parenting time in contested cases, likely increasing joint custody awards where safety concerns are not demonstrated.
  • Raises evidentiary threshold (clear and convincing evidence) for courts to deny agreed parenting-time schedules or joint custody requested by parents — could reduce court-modification orders but may increase litigation over safety or best-interest evidence.
  • Administrative effect: courts must provide and record required notice and make explicit findings when deviating from presumptions.
  • Safety concerns remain addressed by statutory exceptions (e.g., convictions for sexual offenses), but critics may argue additional safeguards are needed for domestic violence or abuse allegations.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.