The COA held in a published opinion that the trial court does not have to find that termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and convincing evidence but only by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Michigan COA affirmed in a published opinion a trial court’s grant of a judgment of divorce, despite the fact that the plaintiff-wife in the divorce was mentally incompetent and the defendant-husband in the divorce was no longer male.

In People v Maliszewski, it was brought to the Trial Court’s attention that one of the jurors had used Wikipedia to define “reasonable doubt” and “corroborating evidence.”

In a recent case, In the Matter of Kloosterman, the Court of Appeals had the opportunity to examine the meaning of MCL 712A.2(b), the provision which permits a trial court to take jurisdiction over the child in a child welfare proceeding.

The January 2013 issue of the Michigan Family Law Journal includes an article by attorneys Scott Bassett and Carmen Moyer in their column "Unpublished decision of the month." The column addressed the family law decision in Rosema v Rosema.

One of the major recommendations/themes I heard repeated during that conference pertained to what a non-respondent parent should do if the trial court is looking to take jurisdiction of the child due to allegations against the other parent.

The Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression: does the Second Amendment bar the prosecution of an individual for possessing or using a firearm while intoxicated under MCL 750.237, where the individual is in their own home?

The MI SCT reversed in a part a trial court's award of attorney's fees in a divorce case. But the victory was hollow for the party who brought their attorney's fee challenge all the way to the Supreme Court in Desai v Desai.

A Federal Judge gave some Michigan inmates a ray of hope. Prison inmates who had been convicted as a juvenile and sentenced to life without parole was unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v Alabama.

In a recent opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Trakhtenberg, addressed a very narrow issue - the use of collateral estoppel by the prosecution to prevent a criminal defendant from challenging his trial counsel’s effectiveness.

A parent in a former same-sex relationship challenged the other parent’s custodial rights by arguing that the probate court who granted the adoption lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was same-sex adoption.

I'll be honest. When I first started reading the 6th Circuit's opinion in Keith v Oakland County, I asked myself, how is it possible for a deaf lifeguard to safely perform his duties?

Perhaps law schools should start requiring their students (and maybe state bars, too!) to take a course on attorney ethics and social media.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the COA website (even the newly minted website to which I am still adjusting). In fact, I look at the docket sheet on the COA website, conservatively, 25 times per day.

When I attended oral argument the other day in People v Trakhtenberg (SCT Docket 143386), it was interesting to listen to the court's questions

The Court of Appeals in Frowner v Smith, addressed whether a parent has to satisfy the Vodvarka threshold to change custody from a third party custodian.

The Court of Appeal, on reconsideration, in Chesser v Radisson Plaza Hotel, left one Speaker without a leg to stand on, which is not surprising given the current state of premise liability in Michigan.

In In re Moore, an interested party in a probate estate alleged that the personal representative provided fraudulent misinformation about the legal obligation to repay a mortgage loan secured by a mortgage on real property.