HOW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME IN MICHIGAN

INTRODUCTION

• Domestic violence is a deeply troubling issue that affects not only the direct victims but also the wider family, particularly children. In Michigan, the impact of domestic violence extends beyond criminal implications. It plays a pivotal role in how courts determine child custody and parenting time. The state’s legal system is designed to protect children from the effects of abuse while ensuring that custody and visitation decisions reflect the child's best interests. This article explores how domestic violence influences custody and parenting time in Michigan, unpacking the relevant laws, court practices, case precedents, and protective mechanisms that shape outcomes for affected families.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

• At the heart of any custody or parenting time decision in Michigan is the “best interests of the child” standard, codified in the Michigan Child Custody Act, particularly MCL 722.23. This statute outlines twelve factors that courts must consider when making determinations about a child’s living arrangements. These factors include emotional ties between parent and child, the capacity to provide for basic needs, the stability of the home environment, and the mental and physical health of the parties involved.

  
  

• One of the most significant factors in cases involving abuse is MCL 722.23(k), which directs the court to consider any domestic violence, regardless of whether the child witnessed it. The law recognizes that even if a child does not directly observe violent acts, the emotional and psychological impact can be profound. Michigan courts must weigh such history carefully to determine whether a parent presents a risk to the child's welfare or to the other parent.

• 
  

HOW MICHIGAN LAW DEFINES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

• Domestic violence in Michigan is broadly defined and includes physical abuse, sexual assault, emotional and psychological manipulation, threats, stalking, and financial control. The law does not require a criminal conviction for domestic violence to be considered in custody decisions; credible allegations supported by testimony, affidavits, or other evidence can suffice. In Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871 (1994), the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed that the best interest factors must be individually considered and that the presence of domestic violence carries significant weight in shaping outcomes, even when no criminal conviction exists.

  
  

• Additionally, under MCL 722.27a(6), a parent convicted of certain criminal sexual conduct offenses involving the child may be barred from having custody or parenting time altogether. These provisions illustrate the seriousness with which Michigan courts treat violence in custody disputes.

IMPACT ON LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY

• Custody in Michigan is divided into two types: legal custody and physical custody. Legal custody refers to the authority to make important decisions about a child’s education, medical care, religion, and general welfare, while physical custody involves the day-to-day care and residence of the child. Courts in Michigan can award either joint or sole custody in both forms, depending on what is in the best interests of the child as outlined in MCL 722.23. However, in cases where domestic violence has been alleged or proven, courts are far more cautious and discerning in granting joint custody arrangements.

  
  

• A history of domestic violence often undermines a parent's ability to demonstrate that they can effectively co-parent or make joint decisions without intimidation or conflict. The emotional power imbalance created by a pattern of abuse not only makes collaboration nearly impossible but also endangers the abused parent and the child by perpetuating a cycle of control. In such circumstances, the court is unlikely to impose a joint custody arrangement, since it requires mutual respect, open communication, and cooperative parenting; conditions that cannot exist where abuse has occurred. The court’s priority is to ensure that any custodial arrangement does not expose the child or the non-abusive parent to continued harm.
  

• Moreover, physical custody determinations are influenced heavily by the environment that each parent can provide. If one parent has created a home environment characterized by fear, coercion, or instability due to abuse, the court may find that such a setting is not conducive to the child’s emotional or physical well-being. Michigan courts have repeatedly emphasized that stability and safety are foundational to a child’s healthy development. Therefore, when domestic violence is part of the factual record, physical custody is often awarded to the non-abusive parent to protect the child from further exposure to trauma.

  
  

• In cases such as Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700 (2008), the court has made it clear that an abusive parent’s prior conduct, including verbal or psychological abuse, is relevant not only to the child’s direct safety but also to the ability of the parents to function jointly in a custodial capacity. Similarly, when domestic violence is accompanied by substance abuse, financial control, or psychological manipulation, courts often interpret such patterns as indicative of moral unfitness under the best interest factors.

  
  

• While Michigan law presumes that a strong bond with both parents is generally beneficial for the child, this presumption is rebuttable when domestic violence is present. The courts are empowered to award sole legal and physical custody to the non-abusive parent where warranted. This ensures that decision-making authority remains with the parent who can act in the child’s best interest without the threat of coercion or harm. Although the abusive parent may still seek parenting time, custody, particularly legal custody, may be restricted or denied entirely when the child’s safety, emotional development, or well-being would otherwise be compromised.

PARENTING TIME AND ITS RESTRICTIONS

• Parenting time in Michigan is governed by the principle that children generally benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents. Nevertheless, this presumption can be overcome when domestic violence is a factor. Under MCL 722.27a(7), courts are authorized to place conditions on parenting time to ensure the safety and well-being of the child and the other parent. This can include supervised visitation, exchanges in public or monitored places, or prohibiting overnight stays.

  
  

• In Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (2010), the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to modify parenting time and require supervision due to a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse. The court ruled that even indirect exposure to abuse could justify limitations on visitation to protect the child’s emotional health. Supervised visitation is a common solution when the court finds that unsupervised contact would be harmful but recognizes the potential value of some relationship between the child and the abusive parent. Supervision is often conducted by a trained professional or a trusted third party who ensures that interactions are safe and appropriate. These arrangements are not necessarily permanent; courts may revisit them based on changes in behavior or compliance with court ordered treatment programs. In extreme cases involving ongoing threats, severe physical violence, or sexual abuse, the court may determine that any form of parenting time poses a danger and deny access altogether. Such decisions are not made lightly but are guided by the need to protect the physical and emotional health of the child.

THE ROLE OF PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN CUSTODY MATTERS

• Protective orders, formally known in Michigan as Personal Protection Orders (PPOs), are critical legal tools available to victims of domestic violence. Under MCL 600.2950, a court may issue a PPO to restrain an individual from engaging in behaviors such as physical violence, stalking, harassment, threatening behavior, or any form of contact with the petitioner. While these orders are primarily sought for personal safety, they can have a profound and often immediate impact on custody and parenting time determinations.

  
  

• When a PPO is issued, especially if it includes the children as protected parties, it signals to the family court that one parent may pose a serious threat to the safety and stability of the household. A judge evaluating custody and parenting time will consider the existence of a PPO as strong evidence under MCL 722.23(k) that domestic violence has occurred and poses a continuing risk. In many cases, a PPO will restrict the offending parent from entering the home, school, daycare, or other significant places, which naturally affects logistical access to the child.

  
  

• Moreover, Michigan Court Rule MCR 3.706(c)(3) makes it clear that a PPO “takes precedence over any existing custody or parenting time order” until the court modifies those arrangements to comply with the PPO’s conditions. This signal of legal priority is a clear indication to family courts that safety concerns must guide custody decisions. In Visser v Visser, 2012, Docket Nos. 301864, 305900, the Michigan Court of Appeals emphasized that PPO proceedings may directly implicate custody or visitation, and that referees may lawfully conduct hearings in such matters.

  
  

• Importantly, the issuance of a PPO does not automatically change existing custody or parenting time orders. However, if a PPO contradicts a custody order (for example, by preventing parenting time exchanges), it can form the basis for a motion to modify custody or restrict contact. Michigan courts typically treat the PPO as a significant and urgent matter. If there is a conflict between a custody order and a PPO, the court may schedule an emergency hearing to reconcile the conflict while prioritizing child safety.

  
  

• Protective orders also serve as evidence that can corroborate claims of abuse in custody litigation. Courts are instructed to take into account not just the fact that a PPO exists, but also the circumstances under which it was issued, whether it was granted ex parte (without the other party present), upheld after a full hearing, or violated by the respondent. Violations of PPOs, especially those involving children or repeated acts of intimidation, can lead to criminal charges, further diminishing the abusive parent’s credibility and legal standing in the eyes of the family court.

  
  

• The Michigan courts have made clear that the behavior giving rise to a PPO could serve as the basis for limiting a parent’s involvement in a child’s life. Moreover, they have held that a pattern of stalking or intimidation, especially if children are exposed to it. It demonstrates a failure to prioritize the emotional well-being of the child, a central concern in custody matters.

  
  

• A PPO may also result in the temporary suspension of parenting time, and supervised visitation may be the only form of contact permitted while the order remains in effect. If the offending parent completes anger management classes, domestic violence counseling, or other court-ordered programs, they may petition the court for a modification. However, courts remain cautious and will often require ongoing evidence of behavioral change and risk reduction before lifting PPObased restrictions.

  
  

• Furthermore, protective orders intersect with the criminal justice system. If the respondent is charged criminally for violating a PPO or engaging in assaultive conduct, these criminal proceedings may delay or limit family court proceedings. Judges often wait to see the outcome of a criminal case before finalizing a custody order when domestic violence is alleged.

  
  

• Ultimately, PPOs act both as shields for the victim and as indicators to the court that custody and parenting time must be approached with heightened vigilance. They can shift the balance in a custody battle, particularly when supported by police reports, medical evidence, and witness testimony. For survivors, obtaining a PPO is not just a protective act, it is a strategic and essential step in safeguarding a child’s emotional and physical well-being within the custody framework.

PARENTAL ALIENATION AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS

• Parental alienation and false allegations represent some of the most challenging dynamics in Michigan custody disputes. Although they arise in separate contexts, they often intersect, particularly in cases involving domestic violence.

  
  

• Parental alienation refers to behaviors by one parent that intentionally or inadvertently influence a child to reject or fear the other parent without legitimate justification. While the Michigan Child Custody Act does not explicitly define parental alienation, courts have considered such conduct when evaluating a parent’s willingness to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent under MCL 722.23(j).

  
  

• It is further recognized under Michigan law that a parent who systematically interferes with the child’s relationship with the other parent may be deemed unfit for joint or sole custody. The courts emphasized the long-term emotional damage such behavior could cause, even absent physical harm.

  
  

• In the case of Molloy v Molloy, 247 Mich App 348 (2001), the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s refusal to modify custody, finding that the custodial parent’s continuous undermining of the child’s relationship with the other parent constituted parental alienation. The court held that the mother’s alienating conduct was not in the child’s best interests and warranted a change in custody. This case is frequently cited for the principle that parental conduct aimed at driving a wedge between a child and the other parent can be as damaging as more overt forms of abuse.

  
  

• The Court of Appeal also affirmed a change in custody due to a mother’s persistent efforts to alienate the children from their father. The trial court had found that the mother’s manipulative behaviors, which included false allegations of abuse and interference with court-ordered visitation, constituted emotional abuse. The Michigan courts are equally cautious about misusing the concept of alienation to discredit legitimate safety concerns. A parent has a right and duty to act protectively when legitimate abuse is occurring. Allegations of alienation must not be used to silence or punish a protective parent, especially in the context of domestic violence. False allegations of abuse are another serious concern.

  
  

• The Michigan Court of Appeals stated that knowingly making false allegations of abuse could be considered a negative factor under both the “moral fitness” (MCL 722.23(f)) and “willingness to facilitate a relationship” (MCL 722.23(j)) criteria. However, the court emphasized that unproven allegations are not necessarily false, and parents must not be penalized merely for raising concerns unless there is clear evidence of deceit.

  
  

• Judges must carefully evaluate the context, supporting evidence, and behavioral patterns of both parties when such claims arise. They often rely on custody evaluators, Guardians ad Litem, and child psychologists to provide neutral insight into the underlying family dynamics. If alienation is found, courts may restructure custody, require therapy, or impose sanctions. If allegations of abuse are found to be credible, courts will prioritize safety through limited or supervised parenting time.

  
  

• The key judicial challenge is discerning when a child’s resistance to a parent is a result of trauma, abuse, or manipulation. Michigan courts have increasingly adopted a trauma-informed lens in such evaluations, especially in post-2020 opinions reflecting deeper awareness of psychological abuse and coercive control.

  
  

• In sum, while both alienation and false allegations can skew custody outcomes, Michigan law balances these concerns by focusing on factual accuracy, child well-being, and parental conduct. There are numerous cases which illustrate that while alienation can lead to a loss of custody, protective behavior in the face of genuine abuse must not be misconstrued as alienation.

  
  

RELOCATION CONSIDERATIONS

• In cases involving domestic violence, the custodial parent may wish to relocate to ensure their safety and that of the child. Michigan law generally requires court approval for relocations of more than 100 miles, particularly when both parents share legal custody. However, domestic violence is a significant factor in relocation decisions.

  
  

• This was illustrated in Rains v Rains, 301 Mich App 313 (2013), where the court upheld the mother’s relocation with the child due to a documented history of abuse and threats by the father. The court found that the move was in the child’s best interest as it offered a safer environment and greater emotional stability, despite reducing the father’s parenting time.

  
  

• Courts are more likely to approve a relocation request when the move is necessary to escape abuse, access support systems, or provide a more stable and secure environment for the child. The court will consider the impact of the move on the child’s relationship with the other parent but will ultimately prioritize safety and emotional well-being.

  
  

CONCLUSION

• Domestic violence has a profound impact on child custody and parenting time in Michigan. The law recognizes the serious harm that abuse causes and mandates that courts consider it carefully when making decisions about a child’s future. While Michigan’s legal system strives to protect the rights of both parents, it prioritizes the safety and well-being of children above all.

  
  

• Custody outcomes in domestic violence cases depend on many factors, including the nature and extent of the abuse, the evidence presented, and the willingness of each parent to support the child’s relationship with the other. Courts may impose restrictions, require supervision, or deny parenting time altogether when necessary to protect the child.

  
  

• Michigan courts do not view domestic violence as a peripheral issue. Instead, it is often the decisive factor In custody and visitation decisions. These courts are also flexible in tailoring parenting plans that protect children while promoting parental involvement when possible and safe.

  
  

• Ultimately, the goal is to create a custody and parenting time arrangement that promotes the child’s health, security, and emotional development. For families affected by domestic violence, this often means crafting a plan that minimizes contact between the parents while preserving the child’s sense of safety and stability. Michigan’s courts, laws, and support systems provide a framework for achieving these goals, but success often depends on proactive advocacy, careful documentation, and legal expertise