The Michigan COA ruled, in this custody case, the trial court correctly invalidated the "domicile provision" in the parties' consent judgment of divorce and found that the best interests of the children must be considered before letting the defendant move out-of-state.

The affidavits in this case were deficient in showing a mistaken belief of fact by the plaintiff and failing to address the due diligence requirement in uncovering the newly discovered evidence, the Trial Court erred in failing to dismiss the case.

The trial court properly declined to enforce a California custody determination because the California court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

ICWA also does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. ICWA’s “active efforts” and “diligent search” requirements apply equally to state and private actors.

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 trial court did not make sufficient findings under each of the best-interest factors, the Michigan COA remanded the case so the trial judge could make “explicit” findings.

The trial court in this custody case did not err in denying the mother’s petition for primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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

The trial court committed clear legal error in Butters v Butters by failing to hold a live hearing where the plaintiff would have the right to present evidence.

The trial court committed clear legal error by failing to hold a live hearing where the plaintiff would have the right to present evidence, subject to certain restrictions permitted by the court rules.

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”.

The trial court’s decision to vacate the custody and parenting-time provisions in the parties’ divorce judgment must be reversed, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The petitioner’s parental rights as a non-surrendering parent under the Safe Delivery of Newborns Law because the petitioner’s divorce complaint constituted a timely petition for custody.

A trial court erred by granting a father sole legal custody of the parties’ minor children, because the evidence showed the parties were able to cooperate and make important decisions.

The Court stated that the trial court erred when it found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights to the minor child was proper.

A trial court is not prohibited by the court rules from giving interim effect to a referee’s recommended order that changes custody pending a judicial hearing on an objection to the recommendation.