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.

The Michigan COA ruled, in this custody case, the trial court correctly invalidated the "domicile provision" in the parties' consent judgment of divorce and found that the best interests of the children must be considered before letting the defendant move out-of-state.

The trial court in this equitable-parent doctrine case correctly ruled the plaintiff did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she and the defendant would have married but for the then-existing ban on same-sex marriage, the Michigan COA decided.

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

Trial court properly denied the plaintiff-mother’s objections to the FOC referee’s recommendation that sole legal and physical custody be awarded to the defendant-father.

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’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

Under the equitable parent doctrine, a would-be equitable parent of a child born or adopted in same-sex marriage may seek custody and parent time.

The trial court improperly held that the plaintiff forfeited his objections to the FOC referee’s recommendations and went ahead and adopted the referee’s recommendations.

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 Michigan Supreme Court found that the Respondent's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cite to the record, citing incorrect legal standards in support of those claims, and failing to raise potentially meritorious claims.

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.

A trial court erred by granting a father sole legal custody of the parties’ minor children, because the evidence showed the parties were able to cooperate and make important decisions.

In this custody dispute, the trial court properly granted the plaintiff-father sole legal and physical custody of the children and awarded the defendant-mother no parenting time.

In Brenner, the appeal by right deadline had been missed, leaving an application for leave to appeal as the only option for appellate review.

The trial court didn’t err when it modified the mother’s parenting time, found that a change in circumstances had occurred and that a change in custody was in the child’s best interests.