The COA reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated mother's parental rights due to two-year child support order compliance period. The COA also affirmed the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court did not err in determining the terms of the settlement agreement as unambiguous and not breached, leading to the Court of Appeals to affirm the decision.

An individual may be “temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment” when a court determines that he or she poses “a credible threat to the physical safety of another.”

The father in this termination of parental rights case did not have standing to claim that his child’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

A child may be returned temporarily to a third country as an “ameliorative measure” if returning the child to his “habitual residence” would pose a “grave risk” of harm.

This custody and parenting-time case must be remanded because the trial court once again committed various errors in making its decisions.

The statutory grounds for jurisdiction were reviewed and were determined that they met by a preponderance of the evidence and the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to terminate a personal protection order issued against him.

The trial court erred by not conducting an analysis of the parent’s “ability to support” when determining whether such support was “substantial.”

The trial court in this high-asset divorce action properly declined to enforce the charging liens that had been filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The Michigan Supreme Court determined that DHHS “has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.”

Because the plaintiff did not suffer “any actual loss or injury,” the trial court in this divorce action did not err by awarding the plaintiff $0 in restitution.

A guardian of an incapacitated individual must execute a power of attorney to delegate to employees the authority to make final decision to exercise a guardianship “power”.

Petitioner was deprived of meaningful discovery related to a hearing where she was to establish that the decision to withhold consent for adoption was arbitrary and capricious.

Trial Court was correct in stating that respondent-father lacked standing to challenge the effectiveness of the child’s lawyer-guardian ad litem.

Trial court relied on an outdated statutory definition of “relative” when deciding to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

The probate court acted properly and plaintiff did not establish that he was entitled to appellate relief, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

Trial court properly denied the plaintiff-mother’s objections to the FOC referee’s recommendation that sole legal and physical custody be awarded to the defendant-father.