In re J. Lovitt Approved for Publication: April 11, 2024 (Cavanagh, and K.F. Kelly and Rick) Docket No. 367124 Lenawee Circuit Court Holding: The Court of Appeals vacated the Trial Court’s order for termination of Respondent’s parental rights and remanded the case, as the Trial Court plainly erred when it went forward with the termination proceeding when the failure to serve Respondent was obvious, when it permitted Respondent’s attorney to withdraw from the case without providing Respondent with the opportunity to obtain other counsel, and where Respondent was entitled to a new hearin ..read more

The trial court wrongly held that the statutory grounds for jurisdiction over the respondent-father’s child were established by a preponderance of the evidence, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. The respondent-father in In re T. Strickland-Miller, Minor (Docket No. 367658) appealed the Kent County Circuit Court order exercising jurisdiction over his minor child, TS, pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (parent fails to provide, when able to do so, support, education, medical, surgical, or other necessary care for health or morals, and there is a substantial risk of harm to the child’s mental we ..read more

In re E. Earl Lyden Trust Unpublished Opinion: March 7, 2023 (M.J. Kelly, Markey, and Cameron) Approved for Publication: April 4, 2024 Docket No. 362112 Muskegon Probate Court Holding: Relying on Soltis v First of America Bank-Muskegon, 203 Mich App 435 (1994) for its reasoning, where the Court concluded that, if there is no indication of intent to defraud the other spouse of his or her marital rights, a spouse may use an inter vivos trust to effectively disinherit the other spouse, the Court of Appeals held that there was no indication that Husband intended to defraud Wife of her ma ..read more

Riley v Graves Unpublished opinion issued April 4, 2024 (Cavanagh, P.J., Madonado, J.J; Jansen, J.J. dissenting)  Court of Appeals Docket No. 367366  Per curiam, with dissent.  Lisa Schmidt of the Speaker Law Firm represented the Appellant-Mother. Holding: In a post-judgment motion based on a father’s non-compliance with medical recommendations to treat the child’s gender dysphoria and suicidal ideation, the Court of Appeals found that there was proper cause to reconsider custody and “no factual basis supporting the trial court’s decision” to maintain joint legal cus ..read more

The trial court in this divorce action failed - for the second time - to make the required findings on certain spousal support factors and, as a result, the support order must again be vacated, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. Meanwhile, the trial court’s award of attorney fees for the defendant-ex-wife fell within the range of principled outcomes, the Court of Appeals held in Lombardo v Lombardo (Docket No. 364062). Lombardo was before the Court of Appeals for the second time. In the first appeal, the appellate panel remanded the case (Docket No. 356822) so the Alpena County Circuit C ..read more

The termination of the respondents’ parental rights must be vacated because the trial court did not properly conduct the adjudication hearing in the case, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. The respondent-father in In re G Mauk, Minor (Docket Nos. 363245, 363246 and 363247) appealed the termination of his parental rights to the minor children, GM and MH, under the following sections of MCL 712A.19b(3): (k)(ii) (parent abused the child or a sibling of the child and the abuse included criminal sexual conduct involving penetration). (k)(ix) (parent sexually abused a child or a sibling o ..read more

In re ADW Opinion Published: March 14, 2024 (Feeney, P.J., and Redford and Yates, JJ.) Opinion Authored by Judge Yates Docket No. 368361 Lenawee County Probate Court Holding: The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over ADW because she was living with an individual who was not her parent and who did not have legal authority over her when the petition for appointment of guardian was filed. However, the trial court did not have the authority to order visits between ADW and her maternal siblings under the Estate and Protected Individuals Code. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals a ..read more

The trial court wrongly granted summary disposition to the defendants, Ingham County and its treasurer, on the plaintiff’s claim that an unconstitutional taking of his property occurred, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. The plaintiff in Yono v County of Ingham, et al. (Docket No. 362536) argued the Ingham County Circuit Court improperly granted summary disposition for the defendants because his property was unconstitutionally taken and transferred to the Land Bank for $1, which was “far less” than what the plaintiff owed in delinquent taxes. The plaintiff claimed he did not receive jus ..read more

The trial court erroneously suspended the plaintiff-father’s supervised parenting time, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled. In Dekarske v Lopez (Docket No. 366704), the Ingham County Circuit Court conducted an evidentiary hearing related to child custody and visitation. The trial court awarded the plaintiff-father and the defendant-mother joint legal custody of their child, CAD, and awarded the defendant-mother sole physical custody. After addressing the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 and the parenting-time factors in MCL 722.27a(7), the trial court held that parenting time with the ..read more

While the trial court properly held there was a statutory basis to terminate the respondent-mother’s parental rights, “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 respondent-mother in In re Hogan, Minors (Docket No. 365923) argued the trial court wrongly held there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that 1) statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights existed and 2) termination was in the best interests of her children.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the statut ..read more