The Trial Court’s best interest analysis in terminating Respondent-Father’s parental rights was “erroneously incomplete” due to the Trial Court’s failure to consider CJM’s placement with a “relative” as defined by MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) during the best interest determination.

When a mother seeks to revoke an acknowledgment of parentage based on MCL 722.1445 – due to the child having been conceived by nonconsensual sexual penetration – the three-year limitation period contained in MCL 722.1437 does not apply, nor does the best interest analysis under MCL 722.1443(4) or (13). The case is remanded to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing so that it can make the appropriate fact findings under MCL 722.1445 by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

This custody and parenting-time case must be remanded because the trial court once again committed various errors in making its decisions.

Trial court relied on an outdated statutory definition of “relative” when deciding to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

The trial court’s decision to award a father joint legal custody must be vacated because the ruling was “against the great weight of the evidence”.

The trial court did not make sufficient findings under each of the best-interest factors, the Michigan COA remanded the case so the trial judge could make “explicit” findings.

The MI COA has ruled, for the first time, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies in Special Immigrant Juvenile proceedings because the statute is silent on this issue.

The trial court in this custody case did not err in denying the mother’s petition for primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Trial court erroneously granted a father’s motion to move to TX with children because, there was insufficient evidence the children’s lives would be improved by relocating.

An award of sole legal custody to the father of the parties’ minor child must be reversed, because the trial court did not exercise “a proper degree of caution”.

The trial court’s decision to vacate the custody and parenting-time provisions in the parties’ divorce judgment must be reversed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for a new appeal due to the Respondent- Father's counsel providing ineffective assistance.

The trial court properly awarded a father sole physical custody of his minor children, because there were legitimate concerns regarding the children’s medical care and parenting-time exchanges.

The trial court in this disputed parentage case properly held that, in light of its finding that the plaintiff had committed fraud on the court.

The father was erroneously granted joint physical & legal custody, because the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with the mother’s motion to change domicile.