considers several factors in Michigan

2025“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” Id. -2- A trial court considers several factors to determine whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests, including “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home . . . .” In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 434 ;

2025“A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” Id. -2- A trial court considers several factors to determine whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests, including “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home . . . .” In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 434 ;

2021In determining whether a trial judge pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, this Court considers several factors: The reviewing court should inquire into a variety of factors, including the nature of the judicial conduct, the tone and demeanor of the trial judge, the scope of the judicial conduct in the context of the length and complexity of the trial and issues therein, the extent to which the judge’s conduct was directed at one side more than the other, and the presence of any curative instructions. [Id. at 172.] Forms of judicial misconduct may include, but are not limited to, “belittl

2016Id.

2021This Court considers several factors under the inducement prong of the entrapment test: (1) whether the police appealed to the defendant based on friendship, (2) whether the defendant had been known to commit the charged crime, (3) whether there was a time lapse between the investigation and the arrest, (4) whether there was an inducement that would make the crime unusually attractive to a law-abiding citizen, (5) whether excessive consideration was offered to the defendant, (6) whether the police guaranteed that the acts were not illegal, (7) whether the government pressured the defendant to

2020The trial court considers several factors when determining whether a defendant has demonstrated good cause, including “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003).

2020The trial court considers several factors when determining whether a defendant has demonstrated good cause, including “ ‘whether defendant (1) asserted a constitutional right, (2) had a legitimate reason for asserting the right, (3) had been negligent, and (4) had requested previous adjournments.’ ” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 18 ; 669 NW2d 831 (2003).

2018Watkins, 491 Mich at 481 .

2018To determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, the trial court considers several factors, including “the necessary time to present the evidence, whether the evidence is needlessly cumulative, how directly probative the evidence is, how necessary the fact to be proven by the evidence is, whether the evidence would mislead the jury, and whether there is an alternative and less potentially harmful way to prove the fact.” People v Sharpe, 502 Mich 313, 331-332 ; __ NW2d __ (2018).