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

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to terminate a personal protection order issued against him.

The trial court in this high-asset divorce action properly declined to enforce the charging liens that had been filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary disposition on the issue of the 2019 amendments to the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals reversed.

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.

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 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 improperly interpreted the terms of the parties’ agreement and, as a result, the plaintiff’s malpractice suit was improperly dismissed, the Michigan COA has ruled.

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.

Trial court didn’t comply with the statutory requirements for denying an ex parte PPO by “merely concluding” that the allegations were “insufficient” for relief, the Michigan COA has ruled.

Hockett, a published and binding opinion from Oct. 2021, concerns whether a trial court had sufficient statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over a minor child who has mental health issues.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has denied a mother’s request for appointed counsel in her child-custody case.

A trial court improperly held that it did not have jurisdiction over a petition for a waiver of parental consent to an abortion, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a published order.

A Grosse Pointe law firm engaged in statutory conversion by depositing two-party checks into its Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA).

There was sufficient evidence to uphold the defendant’s convictions for violating a personal protection order (PPO) that had been issued against him.

The Supreme Court determined that reasonable efforts had not been made by the Department, as no service plan had been created to attempt to reunify the children with their mother.