WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 940

Family law: child custody; factors determining best interest of child; include equal time with both parents as a factor. Amends secs. 3 & 5 of 1970 PA 91 (MCL 722.23 & 722.25). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0941'26, SB 0942'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jim Runestad

Michigan codifies a strong presumption of equal or near-equal parenting time in most custody cases, with expanded best-interest factors and protections against offenders.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS, JUDICIARY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY
#familylaw:childcustody
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 940

Summary of SB 940 (2025-2026) – Michigan

Jurisdiction: Michigan
Bill Title: Family law: child custody; factors determining best interest of child; include equal time with both parents as a factor
TIE BAR WITH: SB 0941'26, SB 0942'26

Note: SB 940 amends the Michigan Child Custody Act of 1970 (Public Act 91 of 1970), focusing on best interests determinations and parenting time presumption. It was introduced on 2026-04-29 and referred to the Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety committee. Co-sponsor: Sen. Jim Runestad.

1) Main purpose and intent

  • Establish and codify a presumption in custody disputes between two parents that for most cases, equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interests.
  • Strengthen and expand the list of factors the court must consider when determining the child’s best interests.
  • Introduce statutory protections related to custody when a parent has committed criminal sexual conduct against the child or engaged in nonconsensual sexual penetration, including presumptions against awarding custody to the offending parent.
  • Include procedural requirements for making findings in writing.

2) Key provisions and changes

A. Expanded “best interests of the child” standard (Sec. 3)

  • The bill codifies the following factors as the “best interests” framework that courts must consider, evaluate, and determine:
    • (a) Love, affection, and emotional ties between the child and each party.
    • (b) Capacity to provide love, affection, guidance, and religious/creed education (if any).
    • (c) Capacity to provide food, clothing, medical care or other recognized remedial care, and other material needs.
    • (d) Stability and continuity of the child’s living environment.
    • (e) Permanence of the custodial home(s) as a family unit.
    • (f) Moral fitness of the parties.
    • (g) Mental and physical health of the parties.
    • (h) Child’s home, school, and community record.
    • (i) Reasonable preference of the child, if of sufficient age.
    • (j) Willingness and ability of each party to facilitate a close and continuing parent-child relationship; actions to protect a child from domestic violence or sexual assault by the other parent must not be negatively counted against a parent.
    • (k) Domestic violence, regardless of who was the victim or witness.
    • (l) Any other relevant factor.
  • The court must issue written findings and conclusions of law in light of these factors.

B. Equal parenting time presumption (Sec. 5(1))

  • Between parents: There is a presumption that equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interests.
  • Burden of proof: The presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence on the record showing that equal or approximately equal parenting time is not in the child’s best interests.
  • Between other parties (agencies/third parties): If the dispute is between a parent and an agency or third party, the best interests standard governs.
  • Between parent(s) and agency/third party: The court shall presume custody to the parent or parents unless clear and convincing evidence shows otherwise.

C. Custody restrictions in cases of sexual misconduct (Sec. 5(2)–(7))

  • If a child is conceived as a result of acts of criminal sexual conduct by one biological parent or if there is a finding of nonconsensual sexual penetration, the court shall not award custody to that offending parent, subject to exceptions:
    • The prohibition does not apply if the parents cohabit and establish a mutual custodial environment after the conviction/finding.
    • The offending parent may be blocked from custody, but other parent/guardian may decline support or maintenance from the offending parent.
    • The other parent may assert an affirmative defense to custody in related proceedings.
  • If a parent is convicted of criminal sexual conduct and the victim is the parent's child, the court shall not award custody to that parent (or to a sibling of that child) unless the other parent and, if appropriate, the child/sibling consents.

D. Definitions

  • “Offending parent” defined as the parent convicted of the specified sexual offenses or found to have committed nonconsensual acts of sexual penetration.

E. Enacting condition

  • The act’s effective date depends on the enactment of companion bills SB 941 and SB 942.

3) Who or what would be affected

  • Families engaged in child custody disputes between two parents, as well as disputes involving parents in contention with agencies or third parties.
  • Parents with a history of sexual offenses against the child or nonconsensual sexual penetration would face stronger custody restrictions.
  • Courts and family law practitioners, who would apply the new presumption, expanded best-interest factors, and written-finding requirements.
  • Guardians ad litem and child welfare agencies involved in custody determinations would operate under updated standards when evaluating best interests.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • This bill is part of a package requiring enactment of SB 941 and SB 942 to take effect.
  • If enacted, the presumption of equal parenting time would apply in standard parent-to-parent custody disputes, subject to the clear-and-convincing-evidence rebuttal standard.
  • Written findings are required for all best-interest determinations.
  • Strong protective provisions apply to cases involving criminal sexual conduct against the child, including potential mandatory custody limitations and procedural defenses.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with the current statute (MCL 722.23–722.25) or a plain-language brief for non-legal audiences.

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

Sign in to ask a question.