The trial court “committed clear legal error” in this custody case by not applying the “parental presumption” or making the required best-interest determination before ordering that the plaintiff-mother’s child remain with the defendant, a putative father who had no legal rights to the child.

In denying a divorced mother’s request for a change of domicile for herself and the parties’ children, the trial court made a “procedural misstep” by not properly addressing the 100-mile rule.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the GAL’s reports, LARA documents, and expert opinion testimony about domestic violence because each piece of evidence was inadmissible.

The COA released a published opinion in addressing the "grossly improper" actions of Judge Reader and a Friend of the Court referee in regard to the custody of the parties' child.

In Powery v Wells, the COA affirmed a trial court’s order changing custody of a minor child based on the mother’s move from Ludington to Traverse City.