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 did not clearly err when it determined termination of Respondent-Father’s parental rights was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination was in the minor child, KS’, best interests.

Trial court relied on an outdated statutory definition of “relative” when deciding to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

Based on a father’s non-compliance with medical recommendations to treat the child’s gender dysmorphia and suicidal ideation, the COA found there was proper cause to reconsider custody.

The Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the appeal in a termination of parental rights case.

The trial court in this case properly revoked the father’s paternity to the minor child under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan COA ruled.

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights in this case and doing so was in the child’s best interest.

Defendant’s motion to change domicile to a foreign county would alter the established custodial environment with one parent and is not in the best interests of the child.

DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-parents with their child despite the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic

The trial court properly modified the original custody order in this case to award the plaintiff-mother sole physical custody of the parties’ minor children.

In this parenting-time dispute, the trial court improperly 1) treated the guardian ad litem (GAL) as a lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL) and 2) denied the parties’ right to question the GAL at a hearing.

A mother’s parental rights were properly terminated in this stepparent adoption case because the termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court’s decision regarding the minor child’s schooling was appropriate because the court did not abuse its discretion in changing the child’s established custodial environment.

The trial court’s order denying the plaintiff-father’s motion to remove the lawyer-guardian ad litem (L-GAL) from this custody case is reversed and the matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

A trial court properly issued an order requiring that the parties’ child be vaccinated by a pediatrician and for the parties to select a new, mutually agreeable pediatrician for the child.

A trial court must examine whether terminating a mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of each child – including whether a guardianship with the maternal grandmother is appropriate.