The Court of Appeals published two cases this week in child welfare cases. The first In re Kanjia and the second in In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux.

On May 13, 2014, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a payor’s spousal support may be increased on the basis of a new spouse’s income. I

Judges should expect their orders to be followed. So it did not surprise me when I read an article reposted in Michigan Lawyers Weekly (about a Lenawee County Circuit Court Judge who was angry at jurors who did not follow her court order.

At the end of last year, the COA, clarified the amount of due process required when an attorney seeks enforcement of charging liens secured by a divorce judgment signed by the client debtor.

On April 15, 2014, in a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that absences attributable to fear of bullying were not “willful” absences under MCL 712A.2(a)(4).

On December 10, 2013, in an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld sanctions for the violation of a consent order that was entered after the discovery deadline had already passed.

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The COA issued People v Lubkin, an unpublished decision vacating a trial court’s conviction of Attorney Lubkin for criminal contempt.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.