Grandparent Visitation Petition - Michigan

IMPORTANT: PREPARATION GUIDE — NOT THE OFFICIAL COURT FORM

Michigan grandparenting-time matters use SCAO-approved circuit court forms and pleadings filed in the
family division of the Circuit Court. This template provides the substantive legal content to help you
prepare — confirm and use current SCAO forms and local court requirements before filing.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

FAMILY DIVISION

[COMPLAINT / MOTION] FOR GRANDPARENTING TIME

(MCL § 722.27b)

NOW COMES the Petitioner, [PETITIONER FULL LEGAL NAME], the grandparent of the minor child named above, and pursuant to MCL § 722.27b seeks an order for grandparenting time, stating as follows:

1. PARTIES

1.1 Petitioner (Grandparent)

1.2 Co-Petitioner (if applicable)

1.3 Respondent(s) (Parent(s) / Person with Legal Custody)

1.4 Minor Child

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. The Circuit Court (family division) has jurisdiction over grandparenting-time actions under the Child Custody Act, MCL § 722.27b.

2.2 Filing basis (MCL 722.27b(3)) (check one):

☐ This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the child; accordingly, this matter is brought by MOTION in the existing case identified above;

☐ No circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over the child; accordingly, this matter is brought by COMPLAINT in the county where the child resides.

2.3 UCCJEA. Michigan is the "home state" of the minor child under the UCCJEA, MCL § 722.1101 et seq., because (check one):

☐ The child has lived in Michigan with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before commencement of this proceeding;

☐ The child is less than six (6) months old and has lived in Michigan since birth;

☐ Other jurisdictional basis under the UCCJEA: [____________]

2.4 Venue. Venue is proper because the child resides in [COUNTY], Michigan, or this Court has continuing jurisdiction over the child.

3. STANDING (MCL § 722.27b(1))

Petitioner has standing to seek a grandparenting-time order because ONE OR MORE of the following circumstances exists (check all that apply):

☐ (a) An action for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment involving the child's parents is pending before the court;

☐ (b) The child's parents are divorced, separated under a judgment of separate maintenance, or have had their marriage annulled;

☐ (c) The child's parent who is a child of the grandparent is deceased;

☐ (d) The child's parents have never been married, they are not residing in the same household, and paternity has been established by the completion of an acknowledgment of parentage, by an order of filiation, or by a determination of a court of competent jurisdiction;

☐ (e) Except as otherwise limited by statute, legal custody of the child has been given to a person other than the child's parent, or the child is placed outside of and does not reside in the home of a parent;

☐ (f) In the year preceding commencement of this action, the grandparent provided an established custodial environment for the child (as described in the Child Custody Act), whether or not the grandparent had custody under a court order.

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 History of the relationship. [DESCRIBE — duration and frequency of contact; whether the child resided with or was cared for by Petitioner; activities, holidays, milestones; the depth of the bond]:

[____________]

4.2 Circumstances leading to this filing. [DESCRIBE — when and how grandparenting time was denied or curtailed; reasons given; informal efforts to resolve]:

[____________]

4.3 Substantial-risk-of-harm allegations (REQUIRED to rebut the presumption). Petitioner alleges, and will prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parent's decision to deny grandparenting time creates a substantial risk of harm to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. The specific factual basis is (check all that apply and provide detail):

☐ Petitioner provided an established custodial environment / served as a primary caregiver, and the abrupt severance of that relationship creates a substantial risk of harm: [____________]

☐ The child has shown identifiable adverse effects (e.g., emotional distress, regression, behavioral changes) attributable to the loss of contact: [____________]

☐ Other concrete facts demonstrating substantial risk of harm: [____________]

4.4 Prior contact considered. The Court is asked to consider the amount and quality of Petitioner's prior contact with the child, summarized above.

4.5 Two-parent veto (MCL 722.27b(5)). Petitioner states that (check one): ☐ The child's two fit parents (or the sole surviving fit parent, the sole fit parent of a child born out of wedlock, or the fit parent with sole legal custody) have NOT both filed affidavits opposing grandparenting time; ☐ Petitioner is aware that if both such fit parents file affidavits opposing an order, the Court must dismiss this action.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

5.1 Parental rights; special weight (Troxel). A fit parent has a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of the child, and a fit parent's decision regarding grandparenting time is entitled to special weight. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); DeRose v. DeRose, 469 Mich. 320 (2003).

5.2 Michigan rebuttable presumption and burden (MCL 722.27b(4)(b)). It is presumed that a fit parent's decision to deny grandparenting time does not create a substantial risk of harm to the child's mental, physical, or emotional health. To overcome that presumption, the grandparent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent's decision to deny grandparenting time creates such a substantial risk of harm.

5.3 Best interests. If the presumption is rebutted, the Court determines whether grandparenting time is in the best interests of the child under the factors in MCL § 722.27b(6).

6. BEST-INTEREST FACTORS (MCL § 722.27b(6))

If the presumption is rebutted, Petitioner alleges grandparenting time is in the child's best interests, considering (check all that apply):

☐ The love, affection, and emotional ties between Petitioner and the child;

☐ The length and quality of the prior relationship and the role Petitioner played in the child's life;

☐ Petitioner's moral fitness and mental and physical health;

☐ The child's reasonable preference, if of sufficient age;

☐ The effect on the child of hostility between Petitioner and the parent;

☐ The willingness of Petitioner (apart from grandparenting time) to encourage a close relationship between the child and the parent(s);

☐ Any history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect of any child by Petitioner;

☐ Whether a parent's decision to deny grandparenting time is related to the child's well-being or is for some other unrelated reason;

☐ Any other relevant factor: [____________]

7. REQUESTED GRANDPARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE

7.1 Regular grandparenting time. ☐ Weekly — [SPECIFY] ☐ Bi-weekly — [SPECIFY] ☐ Monthly — [SPECIFY] ☐ Other — [____________]

7.2 Holidays and special occasions.

7.3 Communication. ☐ Telephone — [frequency] ☐ Video calls — [frequency] ☐ Mail/cards

7.4 Transportation / exchange. ☐ Petitioner will provide transportation ☐ Exchange location: [____________]

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Find that Petitioner has standing under MCL § 722.27b(1);

B. Hold a hearing and find that Petitioner has rebutted, by a preponderance of the evidence, the presumption that the parent's denial of grandparenting time does not create a substantial risk of harm to the child;

C. Find that grandparenting time is in the best interests of the child under MCL § 722.27b(6);

D. Enter an order granting Petitioner grandparenting time on the schedule set forth in Section 7, or as the Court deems appropriate;

E. Grant Petitioner reasonable telephone, video, and written communication with the child;

F. Award costs; and

G. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

9. VERIFICATION / SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT (MCL § 722.27b(4)(a))

I, [PETITIONER NAME], being first duly sworn, depose and state that I am the Petitioner; that I have read the foregoing [Complaint / Motion], including the factual allegations in Section 4; and that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]

Signature: _________________________________

Print Name: [____________]

Subscribed and sworn to before me on [__/__/____].

_________________________________
Notary Public, State of Michigan
County of [____________]
My commission expires: [____________]

10. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted,

Date: [__/__/____]

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Petitioner (Pro Se)

— or —

_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[____________])
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[TELEPHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Petitioner

11. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

TO THE RESPONDENT(S): You have been served with a [Complaint / Motion] for Grandparenting Time under MCL § 722.27b. A party who has legal custody of the child may file an opposing affidavit. A hearing will be held on the Court's own motion or if a party requests one. If two fit parents (or the sole fit/surviving/sole-legal parent) file affidavits opposing an order, the Court must dismiss the action. You have the right to respond within the time prescribed by the Michigan Court Rules, to appear at any hearing, and to be represented by an attorney.

12. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], a copy of the foregoing [Complaint / Motion] and supporting affidavit was served upon each person who has legal custody of, or an order for parenting time with, the child, by the method indicated:

Respondent 1 — Name: [____________]; Address: [____________]; Method: ☐ Personal service ☐ Certified mail ☐ Other: [____________]

Respondent 2 — Name: [____________]; Address: [____________]; Method: ☐ Personal service ☐ Certified mail ☐ Other: [____________]

Signature: _________________________________

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• MCL § 722.27b — Grandparenting time: standing circumstances (subsec. (1)); filing by motion or complaint (subsec. (3)); affidavit/notice/hearing (subsec. (4)(a)); rebuttable presumption and preponderance burden (subsec. (4)(b)); two-parent veto/dismissal (subsec. (5)); best-interest factors (subsec. (6)). https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-722-27b
• MCL § 722.22(e) — Definition of "grandparent."
• DeRose v. DeRose, 469 Mich. 320 (2003) — Prior grandparent visitation statute held unconstitutional under Troxel; prompted the 2004 amendments.
• Brinkley v. Brinkley (Baca), 277 Mich. App. 23 (2007) — Upholding constitutionality of MCL 722.27b(5).
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — Fit parents' decisions entitled to special weight.
• MCL § 722.1101 et seq. — Michigan UCCJEA (jurisdiction; home state).