The Court of Appeals vacated the Trial Court’s decision because the Brazilian birth certificate identifying Defendant as Father was not sufficient to establish his parentage and therefore the entry of the Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO) was erroneous. 

The Michigan Supreme Court has remanded a probate dispute to the Court of Appeals, ordering the three-judge appellate panel to explain why it awarded a party vexatious appeal sanctions under the Michigan Court Rules.

Trial Court properly denied guardian’s request to terminate mother’s parental rights because, even though mother had not had substantial and regular contact with the child for more than 2 years and although mother had not supported the child for more than 2 years, the guardian’s actions prevented phone calls and visits.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated part of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in In re JMG/JGG/JMG, Minors, remanding the termination of parental rights case and ordering the trial court to “make an individualized best-interests determination as to each child.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that requiring a social worker who abuses a child to report that abuse under the Child Protection Law violates the social worker’s right against self-incrimination.

The Court of Appeals ruled that a chiropractor may offer expert testimony on causation in personal injury cases, provided it falls within the scope of chiropractic practice as defined by the Public Health Code, while affirming the exclusion of causation testimony from a physical therapist due to limitations in their scope of practice.

Previously, the Court of Appeals found plain error after the Trial Court held that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her right to appeal the Trial Court’s removal of the children from her care.

A trial court properly refused to award the plaintiff in this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case attorney fees that were incurred after the defendant’s disclosure of the requested information but incurred as a result of seeking fees related to that disclosure – otherwise known as “fees for fees,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ contractual claims against Michigan State University over the school’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals concluded that failure to release a notice of lis pendens following dismissal of claims upon which alleged interest was premised warranted a finding of malice, even if the initial filing was not malicious or false.

An order terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing must be reversed because the trial court’s analysis was “flawed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A probate court’s order awarding an attorney his fees from a decedent’s estate must be reversed because the Department of Health and Human Services’ claim for fees under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery Program has higher priority.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that attorney fees incurred to correct or limit damages caused by legal malpractice are recoverable in a malpractice action, even without allegations of fraudulent or malicious conduct.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s order terminating Respondent-Mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). DHHS failed to plead aggravated circumstances, and also failed to provide facts supporting their request for termination at initial disposition.

The Court of Appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed the Trial Court's decision, ruling that Kent County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the child custody matters, while Ottawa County Circuit Court erred in denying a motion to quash without considering alternative arguments related to continuing jurisdiction.

The trial court erred in denying the respondent’s motion to terminate a personal protection order (PPO) that was issued against him because the court proceedings “lacked the due process needed for continuation of the PPO,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.