Comments    Full Text    Add to Watch List      Previous   Next 

Public Act 542 of 2004

1. Introduced by Sen. Alan Sanborn (R) on September 24, 2003, to revise the state grandparent visitation law, which applies to child custody disputes, to comply with a ruling from the state Supreme Court in the case of DeRose v DeRose. The court ruled that the previous law excessively limited the authority of parents. The bill would place the burden of proof on a grandparent to show that a parent's decision to not approve grandparenting time is not in the child's best interest. Before issuing a grandparenting time order a court would have to consider factors such as the love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the grandparent and the child; the grandparent’s moral fitness; the grandparent’s mental and physical health; the child’s reasonable preference; the effect on the child of hostility between parent and grandparent; and more.
   • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2003.
     • Reported in the Senate on October 16, 2003, with the recommendation that bill be referred to the Committee on Senior Citizens and Veterans Affairs.
   • Referred to the Senate Senior Citizens and Veterans Affairs Committee on October 16, 2003.
     • Reported in the Senate on December 16, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
   • Substitute offered in the Senate on February 11, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described, amended to establish that if two fit parents both oppose an order for grandparenting time, the court must dismiss the grandparent's request for it. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 11, 2004.
2. Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on February 11, 2004, to revise the state grandparent visitation law, which applies to child custody disputes, to comply with a ruling from the state Supreme Court in the case of DeRose v DeRose. The court ruled that the previous law excessively limited the authority of parents. The bill would place the burden of proof on a grandparent to show with "clear and convincing" evidence that grandparenting time is in the child's best interest. Before issuing a grandparenting time order a court would have to consider factors such as the love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the grandparent and the child; the grandparent’s moral fitness; the grandparent’s mental and physical health; the child’s reasonable preference; the effect on the child of hostility between parent and grandparent; and more.
   Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
   
   
3. Received in the House on February 11, 2004.
   • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2004.
   • Reported in the House on March 18, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
   • Substitute offered in the House on March 31, 2004, to replace the Senate-passed version of the bill with one that changes the standard a grandparent must meet to demonstrate that court-ordered "grandparenting time" is in the child's best interest. The Senate requires "clear and convincing" evidence, and this version requires a lower "preponderance of evidence" standard. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 31, 2004.
   • Amendment offered by Rep. Jim Howell (R) on March 31, 2004, to prohibit a court from referring a complaint or motion for grandparenting time filed to the Friend of the Court office, but instead authorize a court to refer it to domestic relations mediation as provided by supreme court rule. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 31, 2004.
   • Amendment offered by Rep. John Pappageorge (R) on March 31, 2004, to clarify certain technical requirements in the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 31, 2004.
   • Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Condino (D) on March 31, 2004, to change the standard a grandparent must meet to demonstrate that court-ordered "grandparenting time" is in the child's best interest from a lower "preponderance of evidence" standard to one that requires "clear and convincing" evidence.
   • The amendment failed 51 to 52 in the House on April 1, 2004.
     Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
     
     
4. Passed 101 to 4 in the House on April 1, 2004, to revise the state grandparent visitation law, which applies to child custody disputes, to comply with a ruling from the state Supreme Court in the case of DeRose v DeRose. The court ruled that the previous law excessively limited the authority of parents. The bill would place the burden of proof on a grandparent to show with a "preponderance of the evidence" that grandparenting time is in the child's best interest. Before issuing a grandparenting time order a court would have to consider factors such as the love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the grandparent and the child; the grandparent’s moral fitness; the grandparent’s mental and physical health; the child’s reasonable preference; the effect on the child of hostility between parent and grandparent; and more.
   Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
   
   
5. Received in the Senate on April 20, 2004.
6. Failed 2 to 36 in the Senate on April 21, 2004, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
   Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
   
   
7. Received in the House on April 21, 2004.
8. Passed 102 to 0 in the House on December 9, 2004, a House-Senate conference committee compromise version, which revises the state grandparent visitation law by requiring a grandparent to show with a "preponderance of the evidence" that grandparenting time is in the child's best interest. This resolves a difference between the House and the Senate, which had preferred a stricter "clear and convincing evidence" standard before a court could overrule the wishes of a parent and issue a grandparenting time order in child custody disputes.
   Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
   
   
9. Received in the Senate on April 22, 2004.
10. Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on December 8, 2004, a House-Senate conference committee compromise version, which revises the state grandparent visitation law by requiring a grandparent to show with a "preponderance of the evidence" that grandparenting time is in the child's best interest. This resolves a difference between the House and the Senate, which had preferred a stricter "clear and convincing evidence" standard before a court could overrule the wishes of a parent and issue a grandparenting time order in child custody disputes.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
    
    
11. Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on January 3, 2005.