The trial court in this child removal case properly accepted the respondent-mother’s waiver of a probable cause hearing and did not err by enforcing that waiver in subsequent proceedings, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this custody matter improperly refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff-mother’s request to modify custody and parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s order on the basis that the Trial Court could not take jurisdiction because the minor child is protected under a no-contact order with Respondent and the minor child is living in a fit home environment with the non-respondent mother, who has been protecting the minor child and meeting her needs.

The probate court in this Mental Health Code case properly ordered the respondent to undergo a combined program of hospitalization and outpatient services, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, finding that the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter.

The Trial Court did not clearly err when it determined termination of Respondent-Father’s parental rights was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination was in the minor child, KS’, best interests.

The Michigan COA has ruled the trial court in this probate action correctly held that the terms of a trust settlement agreement were unambiguous and were not breached by the sole successor trustee.

The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff-teacher’s constructive discharge claim against the defendant-school district and its human resources director because the teacher’s resignation was “voluntary,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Trial Court plainly erred when it found that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify Respondent-Mother with her minor children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her appellate rights following the Trial Court’s removal of the children from Respondent-Mother’s care.

In this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the trial court correctly refused to allow the testimony of the defendant’s proposed expert on criminal defense practice, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

After granting an ex parte PPO, the trial court denied Respondent an opportunity to present evidence in support of his motion to terminate the PPO. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The Michigan Supreme Court decided the trial court wrongly held that expert testimony on shaken baby syndrome (SBS) was inadmissible under the rules of evidence and, as a result, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The Michigan COA ruled, in this custody case, the trial court correctly invalidated the "domicile provision" in the parties' consent judgment of divorce and found that the best interests of the children must be considered before letting the defendant move out-of-state.

The Trial Court did not err when it granted the Appellee’s petition to be sole guardian of the ward in question, AMMB, despite the Appellant’s multiple challenges to the order in question.

The trial court in this equitable-parent doctrine case correctly ruled the plaintiff did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she and the defendant would have married but for the then-existing ban on same-sex marriage, the Michigan COA decided.

In Neilson v Board of State Canvassers, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of State Canvassers to certify her as a judicial candidate on the election ballot.

Kent County Circuit Court candidate Jennifer Johnsen was wrongly kept off the Michigan primary ballot by the Board of State Canvassers, according to the Michigan Court of Claims.

The trial court properly extended – on its own motion – the duration of a personal protection order (PPO) after finding the respondent guilty of criminal contempt for violating the PPO, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court erred in awarding Petitioner attorney fees associated with Respondent’s PPO violation. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.