The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.

Previously, the Court of Appeals found plain error after the Trial Court held that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her right to appeal the Trial Court’s removal of the children from her care.

The Michigan SCT declined to hear the plaintiff’s appeal, thereby affirming that the plaintiff wasn’t entitled to compensation for the 9 years he spent in prison before being acquitted of sexual assault.

A defendant convicted of criminal sexual conduct was entitled to a new trial because an unredacted recording of the defendant’s police interrogation was improperly admitted into evidence.

A trial court judge did not have to disqualify himself from the defendant’s criminal case even though the judge had publicly endorsed the prosecutor in a Circuit Court election campaign.

In a September 30, 2009 opinion, Washtenaw County Family Court Judge, Hon. Darlene O'Brien, called into question the constitutionality of SORA's application in juvenile cases.

In People v McNeil, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had abused its discretion by granting the defendant a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines for reasons that were not substantially compelling.