Background
Kenneth Hafler and Starnique Pruitt are the unmarried parents of KH, born in 2021. They executed an affidavit of parentage but had no court order governing custody. After Pruitt announced plans to move with KH to Arizona, Hafler filed an original action in January 2025 seeking joint custody and parenting time. Pruitt moved KH to Arizona in April and filed a motion to change domicile in June.
Following a two-day bench trial, the Wayne Circuit Court found that KH had an established custodial environment with both parents in Michigan. It found Pruitt’s allegations that Hafler had sexually abused KH were not credible and concluded that her unilateral relocation reflected poor judgment. The court granted the parents joint legal and physical custody, denied Pruitt’s relocation request, ordered KH returned to Michigan, established interim and general parenting-time terms, and reserved the precise parenting-time schedule and child-support amount for a review hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because no existing court order governed custody, the change-of-domicile framework in MCL 722.31—including its relocation factors—did not apply. The affidavit of parentage was not an initial custody order. Instead, the original custody action was governed by MCL 722.27, requiring the trial court to determine KH’s established custodial environment and then apply the statutory best-interest factors. Because KH had an established custodial environment with both parents, Pruitt had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that disrupting that environment through relocation was in KH’s best interests, and she failed to do so.
The appellate court also rejected Pruitt’s remaining challenges. The trial court’s initial mistaken statement that no relocation motion had been filed was harmless because it recognized and decided the motion when issuing its ruling. Hafler’s testimony that he did not oppose Pruitt’s personal move did not control the court’s independent best-interest inquiry. The findings on moral fitness, facilitation of the parent-child relationship, and other relevant circumstances were not against the great weight of the evidence. The court also acted within its discretion by stating general parenting-time terms and reserving the exact schedule and child-support determination for a later hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan’s statutory change-of-domicile factors do not apply when no existing court order governs parental custody; an affidavit of parentage is not such an order.
- When a child has an established custodial environment with both parents, a parent seeking to disrupt it must show by clear and convincing evidence that the change serves the child’s best interests.
- A trial court may provide parenting time in general terms when neither party requests greater specificity and may reserve child support for a later hearing and order.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an original custody action from a relocation dispute arising under an existing custody order. That distinction determines both the governing statutory framework and the moving parent’s evidentiary burden.
It also confirms that a parent’s willingness to permit the other parent’s personal relocation does not displace the court’s independent duty to protect the child’s best interests or preserve an established custodial environment.