Can My Ex Move My Child Out of State? Michigan's 100-Mile Rule Explained
Most parents find out about the 100-mile rule the hard way. A text message arrives — a new job in Chicago, a fiancé in Ohio, a plan to be closer to family downstate — and suddenly the parenting time schedule you negotiated two years ago looks impossible. Or you are the parent with the opportunity, and you're wondering whether you need permission to take it.
Michigan law has a specific answer, and it is narrower and stranger than most people expect.
The rule itself
Under MCL 722.31, a child whose custody is governed by a court order has a legal residence with each parent. Neither parent may move that child more than 100 miles from the child's legal residence at the time the action was commenced without either the other parent's consent or the court's permission.
That emphasized part is where people go wrong. The 100 miles is not measured from where you live today. On the face of the statute, it is measured from where the child lived when the action in which the order was issued was commenced — so if you have already relocated once since the judgment, the statutory text points back to the original address rather than your current one.
Two more things surprise people:
It's radial miles, not driving miles. The Court of Appeals settled this in Bowers v VanderMeulen-Bowers, 278 Mich App 287, 295-296; 750 NW2d 597 (2008), holding that a "mile" means 5,280 feet in a straight line — nothing in the ordinary meaning of the word indicates the distance is "to be measured along available routes of public travel." So a move that's well over 100 miles by highway may be inside the rule as the crow flies. Measure it before you assume either way.
Crossing the state line generally requires permission regardless of distance. This is the trap. MCR 3.211(C)(1) requires every custody order to provide that the child's residence may not be moved out of Michigan without approval of the judge who awarded custody. In Gagnon v Glowacki, 295 Mich App 557; 815 NW2d 141 (2012), the Court of Appeals held that where the custody order contains that prohibition, the MCL 722.31(4) factors apply to an out-of-state move "regardless of the distance involved." Grand Rapids to South Bend, Indiana is roughly 94 radial miles — under 100, and still a matter for the judge. (If you have an older or nonconforming order that lacks the required provision, the analysis is different; have it reviewed.)
When the rule doesn't apply at all
MCL 722.31 has real exceptions, and they matter:
The other parent consents. MCL 722.31(2). Get it in writing, and get it into an order.
One parent has sole legal custody. MCL 722.31(2) says the section simply does not apply.
The two residences were already more than 100 miles apart when the action was commenced. MCL 722.31(3).
The move brings the two homes closer together than they were before. MCL 722.31(3).
Your order already contains an agreed provision on how residence changes will be handled, and the move complies with it. MCL 722.31(5).
A parent is fleeing domestic violence and needs a safe location. MCL 722.31(6) permits the move pending the court's determination.
One important caveat on sole legal custody. Even where MCL 722.31 switches off, the analysis does not end. In Sulaica v Rometty, 308 Mich App 568 (2014), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court must still determine whether the move would alter the child's established custodial environment — and if it would, apply the best-interest factors under a clear and convincing evidence standard. MCR 3.211(C)(1)'s out-of-state provision also still applies.
The five factors
If the rule does apply, MCL 722.31(4) requires the court to consider each of five factors, "with the child as the primary focus":
(a) Whether the move has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.
(b) Each parent's compliance with the parenting time order and use of their time — and whether the move is inspired by a desire to defeat or frustrate the schedule.
(c) Whether parenting time can realistically be restructured to preserve and foster the child's relationship with the other parent, and whether each parent is likely to comply.
(d) Whether the objecting parent is motivated by a desire to gain a financial advantage on support.
(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
Note what is missing. There is nothing here about the moving parent's new job title, the school district's test scores in the abstract, or who is the "better" parent. Factor (c) is usually the battleground, and it is a question about logistics and credibility: a specific, funded, workable long-distance schedule is a different presentation than an assurance that the parties will figure it out.
Winning the five factors is only step one
This is the part that catches people, including some lawyers. In Rains v Rains, 301 Mich App 313 (2013), the Court of Appeals laid out a four-step analysis:
The court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the MCL 722.31(4) factors support the move. The burden is on the parent asking to relocate.
If they do, the court determines whether an established custodial environment exists.
If one exists, the court determines whether the move would modify or alter it.
If — and only if — the move would alter the established custodial environment, the court applies the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 under a clear and convincing evidence standard.
That fourth step is a much heavier lift than the first. A parent who clears the five factors and then loses on clear and convincing evidence has still lost. The Michigan Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Sabatine v Sabatine, Docket No. 165279 (June 11, 2024), confirms that whether an arrangement modifies the established custodial environment is judged on the circumstances existing when the trial court makes its decision — not as of the date of separation.
Note what the established custodial environment test actually asks. Under MCL 722.27(1)(c), it turns on whether, over an appreciable time, the child naturally looks to that parent for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort. It is a qualitative question, not an arithmetic one.
How this actually runs in court
The motion is filed in the circuit court handling your case, usually on SCAO form FOC 115, and the Friend of the Court office is served along with the other parent. The responding parent files form FOC 116.
MCR 3.210(C)(1) names change of domicile expressly: when the motion is contested and would change the child's established custodial environment, the court may not enter an order without first holding an evidentiary hearing. That hearing must be held within 56 days, MCR 3.210(C)(1), and the court must decide within 28 days after it, MCR 3.210(C)(3) — though the court may extend either period for good cause under MCR 3.210(C)(7). In practice, these matters often take longer than the rule's outer limits suggest.
Plan on a real hearing with real testimony. Bring the employment offer, the housing, the school information, the travel budget, and a specific proposed parenting time schedule with dates and who pays for what.
If a parent moves without permission
Don't. An unauthorized move is typically pursued as contempt of the custody and parenting time order. The Friend of the Court's duties on a complaint alleging a violation are set out in MCL 552.641, and MCL 552.644 governs the civil contempt proceeding and its remedies for the parenting time consequences. The sanction menu in MCL 552.644(2) includes modified parenting time, make-up time, a fine, jail, and suspension of occupational, driver's, recreational and sporting licenses. Under MCL 552.644(4), commitment may not exceed 45 days for a first finding of contempt or 90 days for each subsequent finding.
Beyond the sanctions, an unauthorized move hands the other parent an argument under factor (b) that the relocation was meant to frustrate their time — a hard position to recover from in the hearing that follows.
What this means for you
If you're the parent who wants to move, start before you accept the offer, not after the moving truck is booked. A developed plan gives the court something to evaluate under factor (c); a completed move gives the other parent an argument under factor (b).
If you're the parent opposing a move, the five factors reward specificity. Document your parenting time use, and get a realistic picture of what the proposed schedule would cost you in overnights — that is relevant evidence at step three of the Rains analysis, which asks whether the move would alter the established custodial environment.
Either way, measure the distance and check whether the move crosses a state line before you assume the rule doesn't apply to you.
If you're facing a relocation dispute in Kent County or anywhere in Michigan, Scozzari Law can walk you through where your case sits in this framework and what a hearing would require. Call us at (616) 226-4343 or email james.scozzari@scozzarilaw.com
to set up a consultation.
This article is general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Scozzari Law, PLLC. Michigan law changes, and how it applies depends entirely on the facts of your case. If you have a family law or criminal matter in Kent County or elsewhere in Michigan, talk to a lawyer about your specific situation.
Comments