The opinion is troubling. It does not appear that the child was a victim of domestic violence or that mother failed to protect the child.

To decide a child's domicile for purposes of insurance coverage under the No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3114(1), the Michigan Supreme Court turned to family law in Grange Insurance v Lawrence.

Over the past several months Michigan's appellate courts have turned their attention to stepparent adoption cases. These appeals have focused on the application of the statute, MCL 710.51(6), in terminating the rights of natural parents, as well as issues involving statutory interpretation and legislative intent.

In its recent review of Kranz v Terrill the Michigan SCT vacated and remanded portions of holdings from the Court of Appeals and Lenawee Circuit Court that were inconsistent with a case from the Supreme Court that was decided in 1929.

The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of Respondent-Mother’s parental rights to her minor child in In the Matter of V. M. Inman.

The issue of operating a vehicle while internally possessing marijuana pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“MMMA”) was tackled this week by the Michigan Supreme Court in its review of People v. Koon.

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of the Michigan Family Law Journal includes an article by attorneys Scott Bassett and Carmen Moyer in their column "Unpublished decision of the month."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?