Under In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270, 273; 817 NW2d 119 (2011), a parent’s parental rights cannot “be terminated solely because he or she was a victim of domestic violence.”

Call it a pet peeve of mine, but it annoys me when the COA miscites case law. Too many times, the COA miscites In re HRC for the proposition that services are not required if termination is the goal.

The COA issued People v Lubkin, an unpublished decision vacating a trial court’s conviction of Attorney Lubkin for criminal contempt. In accordance with prior plans, on April 12, 2012, Attorney Lubkin and a client had lunch at a restaurant.

The Court of Appeals has addressed the one-parent in the context of a plea taken from a nonparent adult, In re Slater/Wiemer, issued March 25, 2014 (Docket 317132).

What I found striking about the decision is that the COA held in this appeal by right that the issue was barred by the COA’s previous denial of a delayed application from a different order relating to the juvenile guardianship.

Basically, the majority says that there is not best interests analysis when there is a revocation of an acknowledgement of paternity, relying on Moiles.

The COA upheld a probate court’s order that approved as reasonable and necessary legal fees billed by a law firm that had been retained by a former trustee, even though the fees were partly due to the trustee's negligence.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the statements made online were not actually facts, because they were “loose, figurative or hyperbolic language.”

The Court of Appeals in an unpublished per curiam opinion reversed and remanded the Circuit Court order in a termination of parental right case.

The case of People v Prentice provides some relevancy to Myspace. On June 19, 2010 a 15 year old victim and two other minors, including defendant’s son, ended up spending the night at the defendant’s house.

Appellate attorneys frequently wrestle with the lower courts register of actions. Sometimes it answers your questions, sometimes it raises more.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court that an officer is not entitled to qualified governmental immunity and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

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.