The Restriction Agreement, which established specific terms for the signing parties to exercise a purchase option at the other parties’ death, was not an illegal restraint on alienation.

The trial court erroneously applied a change-of-circumstances standard to the Friend of the Court’s petition to modify child support, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court erred in granting the respondent a directed verdict during a child protective proceeding bench trial because the court rules limit directed verdicts to jury trials

The trial court erroneously refused to view and admit video-recorded forensic interviews with the children, who were allegedly abused by their father, the Michigan COA has ruled.

ICWA also does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. ICWA’s “active efforts” and “diligent search” requirements apply equally to state and private actors.

The trial court improperly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with her children.

The trial court improperly interpreted the terms of the parties’ agreement and, as a result, the plaintiff’s malpractice suit was improperly dismissed, the Michigan COA has ruled.

The trial court wrongly denied the respondent’s motion to terminate a PPO entered against him because “fear alone” is insufficient to justify continuing a PPO, the Michigan COA has ruled.

DHHS’s petition to terminate parental rights was declined because the petition did not establish probable cause that the father posed a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being.

In this divorce action, the COA affirmed the discovery sanctions that were imposed but remanded the case for the trial court to address various marital asset issues.

The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the GAL’s reports, LARA documents, and expert opinion testimony about domestic violence because each piece of evidence was inadmissible.

The order from which the respondent appealed in this termination of parental rights case was not a “final order” pursuant to the court rules, a Michigan Court of Appeals majority has decided.

Trial court didn’t comply with the statutory requirements for denying an ex parte PPO by “merely concluding” that the allegations were “insufficient” for relief, the Michigan COA has ruled.

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.

A father’s right to control the custody and care of his child must yield, to the state’s interest in preventing upheaval for the child who had been in care with the same foster family for nearly 2 years.

The trial court correctly held that the minor children in this case would be harmed if returned to their mother’s care and, as a result, properly terminated her parental rights.

The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted amendments to various Michigan Court Rules (MCR) that apply to termination of parental rights cases.

The trial court improperly held that the plaintiff forfeited his objections to the FOC referee’s recommendations and went ahead and adopted the referee’s recommendations.