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.

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding did not “articulate an adequate basis or make sufficient factual findings to justify its denial of jurisdiction” over the minor child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this child removal case properly accepted the respondent-mother’s waiver of a probable cause hearing and did not err by enforcing that waiver in subsequent proceedings, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The father in this termination of parental rights case did not have standing to claim that his child’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

The termination of the respondents’ parental rights must be vacated because the trial court didn’t properly conduct the adjudication hearing in the case.

“We reverse and remand for further proceedings on whether termination is in the children’s best interests,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because termination was in the children’s best interests.

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.

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 trial court erred in granting the respondent a directed verdict during a child protective proceeding bench trial because the court rules limit directed verdicts to jury trials

The trial court erroneously refused to view and admit video-recorded forensic interviews with the children, who were allegedly abused by their father, the Michigan COA has ruled.

The trial court improperly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with her children.

The order from which the respondent appealed in this termination of parental rights case was not a “final order” pursuant to the court rules, a Michigan Court of Appeals majority has decided.

A father’s right to control the custody and care of his child must yield, to the state’s interest in preventing upheaval for the child who had been in care with the same foster family for nearly 2 years.

The MI SCT is set to hear oral arguments on the application to appeal the decision in In re Holbrook, Minor, a case involving statutory grounds for a trial court to take jurisdiction over a minor.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order terminating the parental rights of a mother who was the victim of domestic violence.