First, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) deprive the Michigan courts of jurisdiction over this custody dispute and require the enforcement of the orders of the Iowa courts directing that the Schmidts have custody of the child. Second, the DeBoers lack standing to bring this custody action under our decision in Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992). Docket No. 96366 began as an action by the DeBoers seeking an order rejecting or modifying the orders of the Iowa courts that directed that Daniel Schmidt have custody of the child.
A joint stipulation to the amount in controversy does not contradict the well-established proposition that "[p]arties cannot give a court jurisdiction by stipulation where it otherwise would have no jurisdiction." Bowie v. Arder , 441 Mich. 23, 56, 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992). The parties here did not stipulate to giving the court jurisdiction by, for example, stipulating that the district court could try a case where the amount in controversy was more than $25,000.
It is that situation that we are in and until a record exists that is full and developed and causes us to question our earlier holding, pursuant to the Robinson tests, we see no justification at present to disturb the Sewell dual jurisdiction holding. Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992); Fox v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 375 Mich. 238, 242-243; 134 N.W.2d 146 (1965); In re Estate of Fraser, 288 Mich. 392, 394; 285 N.W. 1 (1939); Ward v Hunter Machinery Co, 263 Mich. 445, 449; 248 N.W. 864 (1933). Finally, given the interest this issue of jurisdiction has generated on the Court, we have no doubt it will be presented to us again in the near future.
Therefore, we leave to the Legislature the task of creating substantive rights, subject to any constitutional restraints, if it finds that public policy so requires. [ Bowiev Arder, 441 Mich. 23, 46-47; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992).] Further, we agree with the Court of Appeals observation that the Legislature has provided a comprehensive statutory scheme to deal with such issues in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq. ; MSA 25.312(1) et seq.
But it has long been the law that a parent may "entrust the care of their children for extended periods of time to others" "without court interference by the state as long as the child is adequately cared for." In re Weldon, 397 Mich. 225, 296; 244 N.W.2d 827 (1976) (opinion by Levin, J.) (quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds as stated in Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992) (emphasis added).
But it has long been the law that a parent may "entrust the care of their children for extended periods of time to others" "without court interference by the state as long as the child is adequately cared for." In re Weldon, 397 Mich. 225, 296; 244 N.W.2d 827 (1976) (opinion by Levin, J.) (quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled in part on other grounds as stated in Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992) (emphasis added).
Such jurisdictional error cannot be related to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, but only to whether jurisdiction existed, because any decision rendered without jurisdiction is void. Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich. 23, 56; 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992). Appellant argues that the probate court's initial guardianship order was void because, in the separate circuit court case in which appellant's parental rights had been suspended, appellee lacked statutory standing to request grandparenting time.
Hillsdale Co Senior Servs, Inc, 494 Mich at 51 n 3. "When a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, any action it takes, other than to dismiss the action, is void." Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56; 490 NW2d 568 (1992). Although jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal, Amos Financial nonetheless preserved this issue by raising it before the trial court.
"When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, any action it takes, other than to dismiss the action, is void." Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 56; 490 NW2d 568 (1992). We likewise refuse to consider the question.
In this civil action which the undisputed facts show that the amount in controversy could not exceed $25,000, the circuit court properly granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, which lay exclusively with the district court. MCL 600.605 ; MCL 600.8301(1) ; Clohset v. No Name Corp. (On Remand) , 302 Mich.App. 550, 560, 840 N.W.2d 375 (2013) ("District courts in Michigan have exclusive jurisdiction over civil matters where the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000."); Bowie v. Arder , 441 Mich. 23, 50, 490 N.W.2d 568 (1992) (explaining that "circuit courts do not have jurisdiction in matters in which jurisdiction is given exclusively by constitutional provision or by statute to another court"). Consequently, we affirm the circuit court. Michigan’s Constitution provides in pertinent part, that "judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice which shall be divided into one supreme court, one court of appeals, one trial court of general jurisdiction known as the circuit court, ... and courts of limited jurisdiction that the legislature may establish...." Const. 1963, art. 6, § 1. Under this authority, the Legislature enacted MCL 600.605 and MCL 600.8301(1) that plainly combine, when no other jurisdictional statute applies, to deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over civil actions "when the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000.00."