Domicile; MCL 722.27; Affidavit of parentage (AOP); Established custodial environment (ECE)

On remand “following our Supreme Court’s order vacating Part IV(A) of our opinion and remanding to consider the issue of domicile[,]” the court found that Part IV(A) “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.” The court noted that when the child was born, the parties executed an AOP that gave initial custody to defendant-mother. “But this AOP did not constitute an initial custody order.” The court noted that “MCL 722.31 applies only to children whose custody is governed by court order. Thus, the trial court should instead apply MCL 722.27 in determining domicile because this custody dispute was submitted as an original action.” The trial court found, and the court affirmed, that the child had an ECE with both parents. Thus, “the trial court must first consider whether issuing an order designating the child’s domicile as Michigan or Florida would change the ECE of the child.” If not, “the trial court may issue a new order.” If the decision does change the ECE, “the trial court must determine whether there is ‘clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the child’ to support its decision.” The court noted that the “best interest of the child is determined by evaluating each of the factors set forth in MCL 722.23.” Vacated and remanded.