The MI Supreme Court has ordered the Ingham County Circuit Court to appoint appellate counsel for the respondents in a termination of parental rights case.

The trial court’s decision to award a father joint legal custody must be vacated because the ruling was “against the great weight of the evidence”.

The trial court’s decision to deny the plaintiffs’ adoption petitions must be vacated and the case remanded because the trial court made several errors during discovery.

The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary disposition on the issue of the 2019 amendments to the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals reversed.

The defendant is entitled to relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the trial court erred in several respects.

Trial Court’s order for termination of parental rights vacated and remanded due to failure to serve Respondent and failure to offer new hearing.

The trial court wrongly held that the statutory grounds for jurisdiction over the child were established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Trial court did not err by granting the husband summary disposition because there was no indication of intent to defraud the wife of her marital rights.

Based on a father’s non-compliance with medical recommendations to treat the child’s gender dysmorphia and suicidal ideation, the COA found there was proper cause to reconsider custody.

COA vacated order awarding Father sole legal custody based on a failure to consider the minor child’s preference.

The trial court in this divorce action failed – for the second time – to make the required findings on certain spousal support factors.

The termination of the respondents’ parental rights must be vacated because the trial court didn’t properly conduct the adjudication hearing in the case.

The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child, but did not have the authority to order visits between the child and her maternal siblings.

Summary disposition wrongly granted to defendants, Ingham County and its treasurer, on the claim that an unconstitutional taking of property occurred.

The trial court erroneously suspended the plaintiff-father’s supervised parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

“We reverse and remand for further proceedings on whether termination is in the children’s best interests,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals finds the framework for calculating reasonable attorney fees under the Supreme Court’s holdings in Smith/Pirgu applies to sanctions under MCR 1.109

The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because termination was in the children’s best interests.