Sec. 206. (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this act, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under section 207. (2) Except as otherwise provided in section 204, before hearing a child-custody proceeding, a court of this state shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties as required by section 209. If the court determines that, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this act, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this act does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the child-custody proceeding. (3) In a proceeding to modify a child-custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the child-custody determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child-custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may do any of the following: (a) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement. (b) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement. (c) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1206
Commencement of out-of-state proceeding; jurisdiction; communication; dismissal of proceeding by in-state court; modification
Applied in 7 court decisions — leading case Cox v. Cantrell (2007)
Most recently applied in 326 Mich. App. 73 - Subrhamanyam Raju Nadimpali v. Padma Byrraju (October 2018)
2001, Act 195, Eff
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Official source: Michigan Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Michigan statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.