An award of sole legal custody to the father of the parties’ minor child must be reversed, because the trial court did not exercise “a proper degree of caution”.

Defendant’s motion to change domicile to a foreign county would alter the established custodial environment with one parent and is not in the best interests of the child.

A father’s parental rights were erroneously terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3) because his incarceration was the condition that led to the initial adjudication.

The case involves the grave risk of physical harm exception to a child’s wrongful removal from their country of habitual residence.

A federal court has refused to hear the appeal of a MI attorney who was charged with contempt after he screenshotted a state trial court proceeding and then posted the photo to social media.

An adult sibling has standing to initiate child-protective proceedings against his parents over the care of his minor sister.

DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-parents with their child despite the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic

The COA reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s ruling that a court-ordered independent medical examination (“IME”) was necessary to look for evidence of sexual assault of a minor.

The Michigan Supreme Court has voided the COA published decision in In re BMGZ, Minor, a stepparent adoption case where the plaintiffs wanted SIJ status for the minor child.

The trial court in this adoption case improperly denied the petitioners’ motion for discovery and wrongly quashed subpoenas that were issued to the DHHS and Bethany Christian Services.

The two minor children of an immigrant who were granted asylum in the United States must be returned to their father in Venezuela, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a 2-1 decision.

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding correctly placed the mother’s children under its jurisdiction because “some efforts” were made by DHHS to prevent removal of the children.

Even though the parties’ consent judgment of divorce included an offset provision, the defendant’s challenge to enforcing that provision is an improper collateral attack.

In this divorce case, the COA adopted a new legal framework that “blends” the “contractual approach” and the “balancing approach” to determine the disposition of a frozen embryo.

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.

The trial court in this child-welfare case did not make all the factual findings necessary to remove the minor child from her parents’ custody and, as a result, the removal order must be vacated.