Even though the trial court did not conduct an interview with the parties’ children regarding their custody preferences, the decision to grant the plaintiff-mother sole legal custody was appropriate.

The trial court’s decision regarding the minor child’s schooling was appropriate because the court did not abuse its discretion in changing the child’s established custodial environment.

The plaintiff’s civil complaint should not have been dismissed after she allegedly gave false deposition testimony because dismissal was too harsh a sanction.

An employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A trial court applied the correct legal standard when denying the Department of Health and Human Services’ petition for temporary custody over the respondent’s children.

A trial court erroneously treated a father’s motion to designate a school for his child as a motion for change of physical custody.

An automobile liability policy should not be voided on public policy grounds because the policyholder had a “sufficient” insurable interest, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A trial court improperly held that the surname of a child born out of wedlock should be changed from the mother’s surname to the biological father’s surname.

A consent JOD under which the parties agreed that the defendant would pay the plaintiff one-half of his military retirement benefits is preempted by federal law and is unenforceable.

A probate judge erroneously applied MCL 700.2801(2)(e)(i) and, as a result, improperly determined that a widow did not qualify as her husband’s surviving spouse for inheritance purposes.

The trial court erroneously discounted the role of the parent who worked outside the home and, improperly ruled that the child only had an ECE with the stay-at-home parent.

A father’s use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method constituted as domestic violence and, as a result, the trial court properly modified custody.

Social workers who conducted in-school interviews of the plaintiffs’ children violated the plaintiffs’ 4th Amendment rights because the social workers did not have a “reasonable suspicion” of abuse.

A trial court wrongly held that the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the parties’ judgment of divorce was untimely and frivolous, and that it did not have the authority to consider the plaintiff’s motion.

The trial court’s order denying the plaintiff-father’s motion to remove the lawyer-guardian ad litem (L-GAL) from this custody case is reversed and the matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The plaintiff-mother was properly awarded sole custody of the parties’ child and the defendant-father was correctly ordered to continue supervised parenting time.