76 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 54 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Whitegreen2 sentences2025The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of domestic violence, the parent’s compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent’s visitation history with the child, the children’s well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption. [In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713-714 ; 846 NW2d 61 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] When a child is placed with a relative, as HW was here, the relative placement “is an explicit factor to consider” in the best-interests analysis. 2025The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of domestic violence, the parent’s compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent’s visitation history with the child, the children’s well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption. [In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713-714 ; 846 NW2d 61 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] When a child is placed with a relative, as HW was here, the relative placement “is an explicit factor to consider” in the best-interests analysis. | 12 | 20 |
Pierron v. Pierrongreen2 sentences2021On the other hand, if the proposed change would not modify the established custodial environment of the child, the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests. [Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010).] Accordingly, a determination of whether a change in custody or “merely” a change in parenting time is at issue is necessary both to evaluate the issue of the “threshold” for initiating a change in the child’s care and also to evaluate the applicable standard of proof in relati 2021On the other hand, if the proposed change would not modify the established custodial environment of the child, the burden is on the parent proposing the change to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the change is in the child’s best interests. [Pierron v Pierron, 486 Mich 81, 92-93 ; 782 NW2d 480 (2010).] Accordingly, a determination of whether a change in custody or “merely” a change in parenting time is at issue is necessary both to evaluate the issue of the “threshold” for initiating a change in the child’s care and also to evaluate the applicable standard of proof in relati | 2 | 4 |
In re Olive/Metts Minorsgreen2 sentences2026Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 . 2025In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 43 ; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 6 |
In re Freygreen2 sentences2026The trial court can also consider the length of time that the child has been removed from a parent and the likelihood that “the child could be returned to [the] parent’s home within the foreseeable future, if at all.” In re Frey, 297 Mich App at 248-249 . -7- Respondent argues that the trial court’s best-interests analysis was “limited.” She argues that the trial court “merely” compared the foster home with respondent’s home and simply stated that DTR had been waiting for permanence and was still waiting. 2025See, e.g., In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248-249 ; 824 NW2d 569 (2012) (“[T]he evidence showed that it was unlikely that the child could be returned to her parents’ home within the foreseeable future, if at all.”). | 1 | 2 |
Rittershaus v. Rittershausgreen2 sentences2026When a trial court fails to make sufficient findings for each of the best-interests factors, “the proper remedy” is to remand for a new custody hearing or for the trial court “to make a determination whether the current record is sufficient to make the proper evidentiary findings.” Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462, 475-476 ; 730 NW2d 262 (2007). 2026When a trial court fails to make sufficient findings for each of the best-interests factors, “the proper remedy” is to remand for a new custody hearing or for the trial court “to make a determination whether the current record is sufficient to make the proper evidentiary findings.” Rittershaus v Rittershaus, 273 Mich App 462, 475-476 ; 730 NW2d 262 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
Jason Andrew Griffin v. Rebekah Marie Griffingreen2 sentences2026See Griffin v Griffin, 323 Mich App 110, 123 ; 916 NW2d 292 (2018). 2026See Griffin v Griffin, 323 Mich App 110, 123 ; 916 NW2d 292 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2024The -10- discretion afforded trial courts under the best-interests test . . . reflects a finely balanced judicial response to this parental deadlock”); Watkins v Nelson, 163 NJ 235, 253; 748 A2d 558 (2000) (“When the dispute is between two fit parents, the best interest of the child standard controls because both parents are presumed to be equally entitled to custody. | 1 | 1 |
In Re AMACgreen1 sentence2019See id. at 539-540 . | 1 | 1 |
Lombardo v. Lombardogreen2 sentences2016See MCL 722.25(1); Lombardo v Lombardo, 202 Mich App 151, 159-160 ; 507 NW2d 788 (1993) (“The controlling consideration in child custody disputes between parents is the best interests of the children. . . . 2016See MCL 722.25(1); Lombardo v Lombardo, 202 Mich App 151, 159-160 ; 507 NW2d 788 (1993) (“The controlling consideration in child custody disputes between parents is the best interests of the children. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Corporan v. Hentongreen2 sentences2016See Corporan, 282 Mich App at 603 (“a trial court may modify a custody award only if the moving party first establishes proper cause or a change of circumstances”); see also id. at 609 (“[b]ecause [the moving party] failed to make the required threshold showing . . . , the trial court properly declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for change of custody”). 2016See Corporan, 282 Mich App at 603 (“a trial court may modify a custody award only if the moving party first establishes proper cause or a change of circumstances”); see also id. at 609 (“[b]ecause [the moving party] failed to make the required threshold showing . . . , the trial court properly declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for change of custody”). | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Lovemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Phillips v. Jordangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Moss
green
2 sentences2023The court acknowledged that while AB and KB recognized respondent-father as their parent and were generally happy to see him, the primary matter before the trial court was the best interests of AB and KB and ensuring the children “wake up each day and approach their lives with a measure of confidence.” See In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 87-88 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013) (noting that the focus of the best-interests analysis is on the child’s rights and interests, not the respondent’s rights and interests). 2023The court acknowledged that while AB and KB recognized respondent-father as their parent and were generally happy to see him, the primary matter before the trial court was the best interests of AB and KB and ensuring the children “wake up each day and approach their lives with a measure of confidence.” See In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 87-88 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013) (noting that the focus of the best-interests analysis is on the child’s rights and interests, not the respondent’s rights and interests). | 16 | 2019–2025 |
In re Schadler
green
2 sentences2020In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406, 411 ; 890 NW2d 676 (2016), citing In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 87 . 2020In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406, 411 ; 890 NW2d 676 (2016), citing In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 87 . | 6 | 2018–2020 |
Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer
green
2 sentences2007The trial court’s factual findings on matters such as the established custodial environment and the best-interests factors are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard and will be affirmed “ ‘unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.’ ” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted); Fletcher v Fletcher, 229 Mich App 19, 24 ; 581 NW2d 11 (1998), citing MCL 722.28. 2007The trial court’s factual findings on matters such as the established custodial environment and the best-interests factors are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard and will be affirmed “ ‘unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.’ ” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted); Fletcher v Fletcher, 229 Mich App 19, 24 ; 581 NW2d 11 (1998), citing MCL 722.28. | 2 | 2007–2022 |
Fletcher v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2007The trial court’s factual findings on matters such as the established custodial environment and the best-interests factors are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard and will be affirmed “ ‘unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.’ ” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted); Fletcher v Fletcher, 229 Mich App 19, 24 ; 581 NW2d 11 (1998), citing MCL 722.28. 2007The trial court’s factual findings on matters such as the established custodial environment and the best-interests factors are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard and will be affirmed “ ‘unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.’ ” Vodvarka v Grasmeyer, 259 Mich App 499, 507 ; 675 NW2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted); Fletcher v Fletcher, 229 Mich App 19, 24 ; 581 NW2d 11 (1998), citing MCL 722.28. | 2 | 2007–2018 |
In Re HRC
green
1 sentence2025As for respondent’s claim that the allegations were ambiguous and disputed, the trial court found credible HL’s testimony that he sexually abused her, and “[i]t is not for this Court to displace the trial court’s credibility determination.” In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 460 ; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nixon v. FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN
green
1 sentence2025As for respondent’s claim that the allegations were ambiguous and disputed, the trial court found credible HL’s testimony that he sexually abused her, and “[i]t is not for this Court to displace the trial court’s credibility determination.” In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444, 460 ; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Contempt of Henry
green
2 sentences2025Because “a court speaks through its written orders and judgments, not through its oral pronouncements[,]” In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 678 ; 765 NW2d 44 (2009), the trial court’s written order controls in this matter. -3- The best-interests hearing was held in April 2024. 2025Because “a court speaks through its written orders and judgments, not through its oral pronouncements[,]” In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich App 656, 678 ; 765 NW2d 44 (2009), the trial court’s written order controls in this matter. -3- The best-interests hearing was held in April 2024. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Gonzales/Martinez
green
2 sentences2024In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 434 ; 871 NW2d 868 (2015). -3- and did not prioritize him. 2024In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 434 ; 871 NW2d 868 (2015). -3- and did not prioritize him. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fletcher v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2024Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 879 ; 526 NW2d 889 (1994). 2024Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 879 ; 526 NW2d 889 (1994). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re COH
green
1 sentence2024At the best-interests hearing, Loren sought guardianship over CSJ, not relative placement. “[T]here is no statutory preference for creating a guardianship with a relative[.]” In re COH, 495 Mich at 207-208 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Dearmon
green
1 sentence2023But perhaps most importantly, while respondent uses many pages of her brief in an attempt to demonstrate how she has changed and is capable of being a good parent, the focus of a best-interests analysis is not on the parent but the children.2 Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rains v. Rains
green
1 sentence2023Rains, 301 Mich App at 325 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re TC
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Berger v. Berger
green
2 sentences2023And the trial court’s factual findings regarding the best-interests factors under MCL 722.23 should be affirmed unless the finding was against the great weight of the evidence, Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). “[Q]uestions of law are reviewed for clear legal error. 2023And the trial court’s factual findings regarding the best-interests factors under MCL 722.23 should be affirmed unless the finding was against the great weight of the evidence, Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 705 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008). “[Q]uestions of law are reviewed for clear legal error. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Faircloth v. Family Independence Agency
green
2 sentences2023See Stumbo v Roe, 332 Mich App 479 , 482 n 1; 957 NW2d 830 (2020); Faircloth v Family Independence Agency, 232 Mich App 391 , 400- 401; 591 NW2d 314 (1998). 3 The “initial order of disposition” under MCR 3.993(A)(2) refers to the first, not the last, order entered during the dispositional phase, regardless of whether the matter ultimately proceeds to termination of parental rights. 2023See Stumbo v Roe, 332 Mich App 479 , 482 n 1; 957 NW2d 830 (2020); Faircloth v Family Independence Agency, 232 Mich App 391 , 400- 401; 591 NW2d 314 (1998). 3 The “initial order of disposition” under MCR 3.993(A)(2) refers to the first, not the last, order entered during the dispositional phase, regardless of whether the matter ultimately proceeds to termination of parental rights. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sulaica v. Rometty
green
1 sentence2023A trial court commits legal error when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law.” Sulaica v Rometty, 308 Mich App 568, 577 ; 866 NW2d 838 (2014). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Truel v. City of Dearborn
green
2 sentences2022However, In Truel v City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125 ; 804 NW2d 744 (2010), this Court stated, “Although an appellee need not file a cross-appeal to argue an alternative basis for affirming the trial court’s decision, an appellee cannot obtain a decision more favorable than the decision rendered by the trial court.” Defendant’s arguments concerning the best-interests factors pertain to “alternative bas[e]s for affirming” the ultimate custody decision. 2022However, In Truel v City of Dearborn, 291 Mich App 125 ; 804 NW2d 744 (2010), this Court stated, “Although an appellee need not file a cross-appeal to argue an alternative basis for affirming the trial court’s decision, an appellee cannot obtain a decision more favorable than the decision rendered by the trial court.” Defendant’s arguments concerning the best-interests factors pertain to “alternative bas[e]s for affirming” the ultimate custody decision. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McCain v. McCain
green
2 sentences2021McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 130-131 ; 580 NW2d 485 (1998). 2021McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 130-131 ; 580 NW2d 485 (1998). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sinicropi v. Mazurek
green
2 sentences2019A trial court’s discretionary rulings, such as the court’s determination on the issue of custody, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. [Sinicropi v Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149, 155 ; 729 NW2d 256 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).] In the context of custody disputes, “an abuse of discretion exists when the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of 2 Respondents also assert that petitioners lacked standing to bring an action for custody under MCL 722.26c, which applies where (1) a child has been placed for 2019A trial court’s discretionary rulings, such as the court’s determination on the issue of custody, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. [Sinicropi v Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149, 155 ; 729 NW2d 256 (2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).] In the context of custody disputes, “an abuse of discretion exists when the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of 2 Respondents also assert that petitioners lacked standing to bring an action for custody under MCL 722.26c, which applies where (1) a child has been placed for | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Trejo Minors
red
1 sentence2016The “primary beneficiary” of the best-interests analysis “is intended to be the child.” Trejo, 462 Mich at 356 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re Mason green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Shade v. Wright green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Harvey v. Harvey green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.