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.

The Washtenaw County Probate Court properly granted a petition for the respondent to receive mental-health treatment.

The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the GAL’s reports, LARA documents, and expert opinion testimony about domestic violence because each piece of evidence was inadmissible.

The trial court properly denied a motion to dismiss a petition for continuing mental-health treatment, even though the petition did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements.

A trial court correctly denied a patient advocate’s request for an order directing that ivermectin be administered to her father, who was hospitalized with COVID-19.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has established a new standard for when an expert witness may be disqualified for an alleged conflict of interest.

In this child-support modification case, the trial court erroneously imputed potential overtime income to the father based on overtime work that he had declined.

In Hegadorn v Dep’t of Human Services Director, the SCT reversed and remanded the MI COA decision that said SBO trust assets are automatically countable for Medicaid eligibility.

Ray appealed to the MI SCT, and the Michigan Supreme Court announced a new framework to clarify the process for determining “the proximate cause” in the context of GTLA.

The COA held that the Juvenile Code doesn’t allow for the imposition of a flat rate probation supervision fee, and vacated the trial court order.

If you’re curious about frivolous defenses and vexatious appeals, the case of Miller v Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan, is worth a read.

The Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) concluded that the equitable-parent doctrine does not extend to unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or same-sex couples.

The COA addressed an issue debated among family law attorneys: whether a party could seek to modify and extend an award of spousal support set by a trial court in the parties’ judgment of divorce.

The Michigan COA affirmed in a published opinion a trial court’s grant of a judgment of divorce, despite the fact that the plaintiff-wife in the divorce was mentally incompetent and the defendant-husband in the divorce was no longer male.

The MI SCT reversed in a part a trial court's award of attorney's fees in a divorce case. But the victory was hollow for the party who brought their attorney's fee challenge all the way to the Supreme Court in Desai v Desai.

In In re TD, the COA held that application of SORA was not "punishment," so it could not be deemed unconstitutional on grounds that it was cruel and unusual as applied to the respondent.