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 COA reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated mother's parental rights due to two-year child support order compliance period. The COA also affirmed the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court erroneously held that statutory grounds for terminating the respondents’ parental rights had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court’s termination of the respondents’ parental rights must be vacated because, among other things, the statutory factors for termination were not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the protective orders that were issued in these consolidated appeals, ruling the probate court “put the cart before the horse”.

A Michigan trial court granted the defendant-mother’s motion to change custody after the plaintiff-father had been permitted to relocate with the child to North Dakota.

A probate court should not have appointed a conservator for a 74-year-old woman who suffered some minor memory problems and math difficulties.

The COA held in a published opinion that the trial court does not have to find that termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and convincing evidence but only by a preponderance of the evidence.