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 decision to award a father joint legal custody must be vacated because the ruling was “against the great weight of the evidence”.

The trial court erroneously suspended the plaintiff-father’s supervised parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court’s decision to suspend Mother’s parenting time had the effect of modifying the award of joint physical custody in the consent judgment of divorce, and MCR 3.207 did not apply to the case.

Under the equitable parent doctrine, a would-be equitable parent of a child born or adopted in same-sex marriage may seek custody and parent time.

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 trial court improperly relied on the consequences of a parent’s voluntary change of custody as being sufficient to constitute proper cause or a change of circumstances to order a change of custody.

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’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.

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 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.

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

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.

A trial court correctly denied a father’s request to 1) change the parenting time schedule and 2) remove a right-of-first-refusal provision from the parties’ divorce judgment.

The matter should be remanded to the trial court so periodic hearings can be held to determine whether reinstating visitation would be in the children’s best interests.