Michigan’s 12 Best Interest Factors for Child Custody

When a Michigan judge decides custody, the decision is governed by twelve statutory considerations known as the Michigan best interest factors for child custody, listed in MCL 722.23.¹ The judge must address every factor on the record before issuing an order. No single factor automatically wins the case, and the weight each one carries depends on the child’s specific situation.

The Twelve Factors

The Child Custody Act defines “best interests of the child” as the combined evaluation of these twelve items:¹

(a) The emotional ties between the child and each party.
(b) Each party’s ability to provide love, guidance, and continuity of the child’s education and religious upbringing.
(c) Each party’s ability to provide food, clothing, medical care, and other material needs.
(d) How long the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and whether that continuity should be maintained.
(e) The permanence of the existing or proposed custodial home as a family unit.
(f) The moral fitness of each party.
(g) The mental and physical health of each party.
(h) The child’s home, school, and community record.
(i) The child’s reasonable preference, if the court considers the child old enough to express one.
(j) Each party’s willingness to support a close relationship between the child and the other parent.
(k) Any history of domestic violence, whether directed at or witnessed by the child.
(l) Any other factor the court considers relevant.

Emotional Ties and Parental Guidance

Factor (a) looks at the existing love, affection, and emotional connection between the child and each parent. This is not a popularity contest. Judges want to see who the child turns to when scared, sick, or overwhelmed. A parent who has been the child’s primary source of comfort for years has a meaningful edge here, even if both parents love the child equally.

Factor (b) examines each parent’s track record of providing guidance and their commitment to the child’s education and religious upbringing. The court wants to see who attends parent-teacher conferences, who helps with homework, and who maintains the child’s involvement in faith-based activities if the family has practiced a religion. Consistency matters more than grand gestures. A parent who has shown up reliably for years carries more weight under this factor than one who ramps up involvement right before a hearing.

Material Needs, Stability, and Permanence

Factor (c) evaluates each parent’s ability to provide food, clothing, medical care, and other material necessities. Michigan law specifically includes “remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state” as an alternative to traditional medical care, meaning a parent who uses legally recognized alternative treatments is not penalized for that choice alone.¹

Factor (d) asks how long the child has lived in a stable environment and whether disrupting that continuity would cause harm. This factor tends to favor the status quo. A child who has lived in the same home, attended the same school, and built friendships in one neighborhood for several years is unlikely to be uprooted without a strong reason. The clock matters: six months in a home carries less weight than five years.

Factor (e) looks at the permanence of the family unit in the proposed custodial home. A household with a stable long-term partner, consistent routines, and no plans to relocate scores better than one with a revolving door of relationships or uncertain housing. Judges are gauging whether the living situation will hold together, not whether it looks good on the day of the hearing.

Moral Fitness and Health

Factor (f) sounds like a character judgment, but it is not. The Michigan Supreme Court clarified in Fletcher v. Fletcher (1994) that moral fitness relates exclusively to how a parent’s conduct affects the child. The question is not who is the morally superior adult. Behavior only matters under factor (f) if it “necessarily has a significant influence on how one will function as a parent.” Past infidelity, for example, does not automatically count against a parent unless the conduct directly impacted the child’s well-being or the parent-child relationship.

Factor (g) evaluates each parent’s mental and physical health.¹ Having a health condition does not disqualify anyone from custody. The court looks at whether a condition limits a parent’s day-to-day ability to care for the child safely. A parent managing depression with treatment and functioning well is in a very different position than one whose untreated substance abuse creates an unstable home. When substance use is at issue, courts often order professional evaluations.

The Child’s Record and Preference

Factor (h) looks at the child’s track record across multiple settings: home behavior, school performance, and community involvement. Good grades, strong friendships, and positive teacher feedback suggest the child is thriving in the current arrangement. Declining school performance, disciplinary issues, or social withdrawal after a change in living situation signals a problem the court will take seriously. Evidence from teachers, coaches, and counselors often carries more weight than testimony from the parents themselves, since outside observers have less reason to shade the truth.

Factor (i) allows the court to consider the child’s own preference if the judge finds the child mature enough to express a meaningful opinion.¹ Michigan does not set a specific age cutoff. The judge decides on a case-by-case basis. When a judge does consult the child, it typically happens through a private interview in chambers, away from both parents, to protect the child from feeling like they are choosing sides. The stated preference is one data point among many. It does not control the outcome, especially if the judge suspects coaching or that the preference reflects which parent sets fewer rules.

Parental Cooperation and Domestic Violence

Factor (j), sometimes called the “friendly parent” factor, can be decisive. The court evaluates whether each parent is willing and able to support a close, continuing relationship between the child and the other parent.¹ A parent who badmouths the other parent in front of the child, blocks phone calls, engineers scheduling conflicts to reduce the other parent’s time, or otherwise drives a wedge between the child and the other parent will take a hit under this factor. Judges have seen every version of parental alienation, and it almost always backfires.

There is an important exception. Michigan law specifically states that a court cannot hold it against a parent if they took reasonable steps to protect the child or themselves from sexual assault or domestic violence by the other parent.¹ Refusing to hand a child over to an abusive parent is not alienation.

Factor (k) addresses domestic violence directly. The court must consider any history of domestic violence, regardless of whether it was aimed at the child or merely witnessed by the child.¹ A child who has watched one parent assault the other has been harmed, even if never touched. A documented pattern of violence can severely limit a parent’s chances of getting primary custody or unsupervised parenting time. When safety concerns warrant it, courts may order supervised visitation at a designated facility, where a trained staff member monitors the visit and can end it immediately if problems arise.

Factor (l) is the catch-all. It allows the judge to consider anything else relevant to the child’s welfare that does not fit neatly into the first eleven factors: a parent’s work schedule, proximity to extended family, or a child’s special medical or educational needs that one parent is better equipped to handle.

The Established Custodial Environment Comes First

Before weighing the twelve factors, the judge must determine whether the child has an “established custodial environment” with one or both parents. Michigan law defines this as a situation where, over an appreciable period of time, the child naturally looks to a custodian for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort.² The court also considers the child’s age, the physical environment, and how permanent the relationship appears to both the child and the custodian.

This determination controls the burden of proof. If a child has an established custodial environment and the proposed order would disrupt it, the parent seeking the change must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the change serves the child’s best interests.² That is a high bar. If no established custodial environment exists, or if the proposed change would not disrupt one, the lower preponderance of the evidence standard applies.³ A parent trying to take primary custody away from a child who has lived happily with the other parent for years faces a much steeper climb than two parents working out arrangements for the first time.

A child can have an established custodial environment with both parents at once. When that happens and the proposed order would not change the environment, the preponderance standard applies.³

How the Factors Apply to Joint Custody

Michigan distinguishes between joint legal custody and joint physical custody. Joint legal custody means both parents share decision-making over major issues like education, healthcare, and religious upbringing. Joint physical custody means the child spends designated time with each parent, but it does not necessarily mean a 50/50 split.⁴

If either parent requests joint custody, the court must consider it. If both parents agree to joint custody, the court must order it unless doing so would not serve the child’s best interests. Beyond the twelve factors, the judge must also evaluate whether the parents can cooperate and generally agree on important decisions about the child.⁴ Parents who cannot communicate civilly or who have a history of using the child as leverage are poor candidates for joint legal custody, regardless of what they request. The judge must state reasons on the record for granting or denying a joint custody request.

How the Factors Apply to Modifications

A custody order is not permanent, but changing one requires more than regret. Before the court will revisit the twelve factors, you must demonstrate either proper cause or a change of circumstances. Proper cause means significant evidence or events not previously known or considered when the original order was entered. A change of circumstances is a meaningful shift in the child’s or a parent’s life that directly affects the child’s well-being, such as relocation, a serious change in health, or new safety concerns.

Once that threshold is cleared, the court applies the twelve best interest factors again, with the burden of proof set by whether an established custodial environment exists. If the current arrangement has created a stable environment and the modification would disrupt it, the moving parent must meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.² Minor or temporary changes, like a brief shift in work hours, are unlikely to clear the initial hurdle. Courts want to see something substantial and ongoing, not a bad week.

1
Michigan Legislature. Michigan Compiled Laws 722.23 – Best Interests of the Child Defined
2
Michigan Legislature. Michigan Compiled Laws 722.27 – Child Custody Disputes, Powers of Court
3
Michigan Courts. Developing an Understanding of the Established Custodial Environment
4
Michigan Courts. Michigan Custody Guideline