The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a custody case on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, has ruled that a portion of its original opinion “erroneously instructed the trial court to apply MCL 722.31 to determine the child’s domicile.”

The trial court “committed clear legal error” in this custody case by not applying the “parental presumption” or making the required best-interest determination before ordering that the plaintiff-mother’s child remain with the defendant, a putative father who had no legal rights to the child.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

The Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the appeal in a termination of parental rights case.

The trial court’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

The trial court in this case properly revoked the father’s paternity to the minor child under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan COA ruled.

In determining whether changing schools was in the best interests of the parties’ child, the trial court improperly excluded a report about the school district.

The trial court in this case wrongly imposed restrictions on a father’s parenting time of his three minor children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court did not make sufficient findings under each of the best-interest factors, the Michigan COA remanded the case so the trial judge could make “explicit” findings.

The trial court in this custody case did not err in denying the mother’s petition for primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

An award of sole legal custody to the father of the parties’ minor child must be reversed, because the trial court did not exercise “a proper degree of caution”.

The trial court properly awarded a father sole physical custody of his minor children, because there were legitimate concerns regarding the children’s medical care and parenting-time exchanges.