Can I record my co-parent in Michigan?

Why Michigan gets two different answers online

Search this question and you will find confident answers in both directions. Both are describing something real.

One side is quoting the statute. The other is quoting the courts that have read it. In May 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to answer a certified question on the participant issue. That left the Court of Appeals precedent in place without a definitive state high-court ruling. Michigan is not a coin toss, but it is not settled in the way a plain one-party statute would be.

What the statute says on its face

The text reads like an all-party rule, and nothing in it mentions participants.

Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto (MCL 750.539c).

A breach is a felony punishable by up to two years, a fine of up to $2,000, or both.

Where the participant exception comes from

The exception is not in Section 539c. It comes from how the word eavesdrop is defined elsewhere in the same act.

That definition describes overhearing or recording the private discourse of others. In Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), the Court of Appeals read those two words as decisive. A conversation you are part of is not the discourse of others, so recording it is not eavesdropping.

Sullivan has been followed by later courts, including federal courts applying Michigan law. Michigan's Supreme Court declined in May 2021 to answer a certified question about the correct interpretation. The Sixth Circuit later described Sullivan as a viable data point while acknowledging that it does not bind the federal court. The rule for participants still rests on Court of Appeals precedent rather than a ruling from Michigan's highest court.

Treat it as probable, not certain

A statutory rule and a judicial reading of a single phrase are not the same kind of comfort.

The honest position for a Michigan parent is that recording your own conversation is likely protected under the current Court of Appeals rule. You are relying on case law rather than plain text or a definitive state Supreme Court decision. Where a felony is the downside, that difference is worth a conversation with a lawyer rather than a decision made alone.

The part that is not in doubt

Nothing in Sullivan helps a parent who is not in the conversation. Recording the discourse of others is exactly what the statute prohibits.

So leaving a device running in a room you have left, or placing one in the other parent's home or car, is the clear offence. Michigan's disagreement is about participants, and it gives you nothing at all here.

Your child's calls sit in the harder half

A call between your child and their other parent is a conversation between other people. The participant exception does not reach it.

Michigan is in the Sixth Circuit, which decided Pollock v. Pollock and recognised vicarious consent under the federal statute. How that interacts with Michigan's own act is a genuine legal question, and one to put to a Michigan lawyer before you act.

Uncertainty is an argument for writing

When the law is unsettled, the lawful option looks better. Your own written note is untouched by any of this.

Write it the same evening. Log the clock time of the conversation and of your writing, quote what you are sure of, mark paraphrase as paraphrase, and name anyone present. Nobody will argue about whether you were allowed to keep it.

A sensible sequence

Keep three or four weeks of dated notes first. Then take them to a Michigan family-law lawyer and ask the recording question directly.

Michigan custody decisions run on the statutory best-interest factors, and most are answered by the everyday detail your notes already hold. Keep the material in a private custody journal, then create a focused PDF report for professional review. The recording, if you have one, is a question to settle before anyone hears it.

A Michigan best-interest note you can keep without any legal doubt

Michigan's recording rule is unsettled. A written note is not, so make it the same evening while the words are exact.

Print checklist

• Time it to the minuteNote the date and clock time you are writing, and the date and clock time of the event itself.
• Quote, don't summarisePut the words you actually heard inside quotation marks. Mark anything you are paraphrasing as a paraphrase.
• Name who else was thereList every adult and child present, and anyone within earshot who is not part of the family.
• Separate what your child saidRecord a child's words as reported speech, and never question a child again to sharpen a quote.
• Mark what is uncertainFlag anything you are unsure about rather than filling the gap, and say what you would need to confirm it.
• Point at the corroborationName the message, receipt, school note or third party that supports the entry, and say where it is kept.

Is Michigan a one-party or all-party consent state?

The statute reads as an all-party rule, but Court of Appeals precedent has recognised a participant exception since Sullivan v. Gray in 1982. The Michigan Supreme Court declined in 2021 to resolve a certified question about the issue, so recording your own conversation is likely protected under current precedent but less settled than in a plain one-party state.

What is Sullivan v. Gray?

A 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals decision holding that the eavesdropping statute covers the private discourse of others, so a participant recording their own conversation is not eavesdropping.

What is the penalty under MCL 750.539c?

It is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to $2,000, or both.

Can I leave a recorder running in my own home in Michigan?

If you are not in the conversation, you are recording the discourse of others, which is what the statute prohibits. Owning the house does not change that.

Can I record my child's phone calls in Michigan?

That is a conversation between other people, so the participant exception does not cover it. Vicarious consent under Pollock v. Pollock may be argued, and you should take advice before relying on it.

Sources

This page quotes MCL 750.539c and explains the participant exception drawn from the statutory definition of eavesdropping and from Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982). Because the point rests on case law, a Michigan lawyer should confirm the current position before you act.

• MCL 750.539c — eavesdropping upon a private conversation without the consent of all parties checked September 2026
• MCL 750.539a — the definition of eavesdrop, which refers to the private discourse of others checked September 2026
• Fisher v. Perron — Sixth Circuit discussion of Sullivan and the unresolved Michigan participant question checked September 2026
• Varnum LLP — Michigan participant-recording split and the 2021 Supreme Court decision not to answer the certified question checked September 2026
• Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998) — the vicarious consent doctrine checked September 2026
• 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) — the federal one-party consent floor and its criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso checked September 2026

Keep reading

Related Casewell pages

Can I record my co-parent? State-by-state guide How to keep a contact log for family court How to write a factual co-parenting incident report A custody journal app for calm, factual records Build a focused PDF from the records that matter Can I record my co-parent in New Jersey? Can I record my co-parent in Virginia? Can I record my co-parent in Washington? Can I record my co-parent in Arizona? Can I record my co-parent in Tennessee? Can I record my co-parent in Massachusetts? Can I record my co-parent in Indiana?