Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

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.

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.

Adoption appeals frequently involve situations that require immediate action by the courts, which means emergency motions must be filed.

A stepparent adoption petition was properly dismissed, because the mother did not have a court order establishing that she had custody of the child.

A trial court erred by exercising jurisdiction over a juvenile, therefore, the order terminating the respondent-father’s parental rights to the child had to be vacated.

The Michigan SCT vacated a COA decision that terminated an unknown biological father’s parental rights, and remanded the case to the trial court for further determinations.

The rulings are concerning for prospective adoptive parents because they allow putative fathers to stop an adoption in its tracks, by obtaining an order of filiation from the trial court.

In In re LMB, the Court of Appeals held that entry of an order of filiation while an adoption appeal was pending mooted the adoption appeal.