What FOC 65 is, and the parenting time standard
Motion Regarding Parenting Time (FOC 65) is one of the form motions the friend of the court office must make available under MCL 552.505(1)(d) for a party who wants to modify a parenting time order without a lawyer. The instructions say to use it if you have a pending case for divorce, separate maintenance, family support, or paternity; if you have a judgment or order in one of those cases but parenting time was not included; or if you already have parenting time orders and want the court to order or change parenting time. They say to use FOC 87 to change custody; for support, instruction G says that if a change in parenting time will affect the support obligation, you may file a Motion Regarding Support (FOC 50).
Parenting time has its own statute. MCL 722.27a(1) says parenting time shall be granted in accordance with the best interests of the child, that it is presumed to be in a child’s best interests to have a strong relationship with both parents, and that parenting time shall be granted in a frequency, duration, and type reasonably calculated to promote that relationship. MCL 722.27a(3) says a child has a right to parenting time with a parent unless it is shown on the record by clear and convincing evidence that it would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health. MCL 722.27a(7) lists factors the court may consider in setting frequency, duration and type, including the child’s special needs, the likelihood of abuse or neglect, the burden of travel, and whether a parent has frequently failed to exercise reasonable parenting time.
Changing an existing order is governed by MCL 722.27(1)(c), which lets the court modify its previous judgments or orders for proper cause shown or because of change of circumstances. In Shade v Wright, 291 Mich App 17 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that a more expansive definition of proper cause or change of circumstances applies to parenting time when the modification does not alter the established custodial environment, and that normal life changes, in that case a child starting high school and wanting to take part in more activities, were enough to modify parenting time. The court called the long travel between the parents’ homes in different states significant and said its holding was limited to the changes in that case. In Sabatine v Sabatine (2024), the Michigan Supreme Court quoted Shade, through Rains v Rains, for the rule that the proper cause and change of circumstances framework applies to a parenting time change only if the change alters the established custodial environment. If the change you ask for would alter the established custodial environment, MCL 722.27(1)(c) requires clear and convincing evidence that it is in the child’s best interest.
The form itself does not print a proper cause item. It asks how the order was disobeyed (item 3), what you agreed (item 4), why the request is in the children’s best interests (item 5), and what you want ordered (item 6). MCR 3.213 says postjudgment motions in domestic relations actions are governed by MCR 2.119, which requires a motion to state with particularity the grounds and the relief sought.