may consider factors in Michigan

2021In making this finding, the trial court may consider factors such as “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, -5- and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations omitted). “[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013).

2021In making this finding, the trial court may consider factors such as “the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, -5- and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations omitted). “[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90 ; 836 NW2d 182 (2013).

2025This Court has also considered the length of time the child was placed in foster care or with relatives and whether it was likely “that the child could be returned to her parents’ home within the foreseeable future, if at all.” In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248-249 ; 824 NW2d 569 (2012).

2023The trial court may consider factors such as the children’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the children’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42 ; 823 NW2d 144 (2012), how long the children have lived in their present home, and the likelihood that they could be returned to the parent’s home “within the foreseeable future, if at all.” In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248-249 ; 824 NW2d 569 (2012).

2024In making a proportionality determination, a trial court must “justify the sentence imposed in order to facilitate appellate review.” Lockridge, 498 Mich at 392 .

2023In sentencing a defendant, a trial court may consider factors that include, but are not limited to: (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s potential for rehabilitation. [Walden, 319 Mich App at 352-353 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] When departing from the sentencing guidelines, a trial court must “justify t

2016To show that severance is necessary, a defendant must provide the court with a supporting affidavit, or make an offer of proof, “that clearly, affirmatively, and fully demonstrates that his substantial rights will be prejudiced and that severance is the necessary means of rectifying the potential prejudice.” People v Hana, 447 Mich 325, 346 ; 524 NW2d 682 (1994); see also MCR 6.121(C).

2016To show that severance is necessary, a defendant must provide the court with a supporting affidavit, or make an offer of proof, “that clearly, affirmatively, and fully demonstrates that his substantial rights will be prejudiced and that severance is the necessary means of rectifying the potential prejudice.” People v Hana, 447 Mich 325, 346 ; 524 NW2d 682 (1994); see also MCR 6.121(C).

2025“This includes an explanation of why the sentence imposed is more proportionate to the offense and the offender than a different sentence would have been.” People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 311 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008).

2025“This includes an explanation of why the sentence imposed is more proportionate to the offense and the offender than a different sentence would have been.” People v Smith, 482 Mich 292, 311 ; 754 NW2d 284 (2008).

2024To determine if an upward departure is more proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines range, a trial court may consider factors including, but not limited to, “(1) whether the 2 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). -2- guidelines accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime, (2) factors not considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors considered by the guidelines but given inadequate weight.” People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App at 525 (citations omitted).

2024To determine if an upward departure is more proportionate than a sentence within the guidelines range, a trial court may consider factors including, but not limited to, “(1) whether the 2 People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636 ; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). -2- guidelines accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime, (2) factors not considered by the guidelines, and (3) factors considered by the guidelines but given inadequate weight.” People v Dixon-Bey, 321 Mich App at 525 (citations omitted).

2023In determining whether to exclude evidence under MRE 403 that is otherwise admissible under MCL 768.27a, the trial court may consider factors including (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450, 487-488 , 818 NW2d 2

2023In determining whether to exclude evidence under MRE 403 that is otherwise admissible under MCL 768.27a, the trial court may consider factors including (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant’s and the defendant’s testimony. [People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450, 487-488 , 818 NW2d 2

2018It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff...."). 55 See, e.g., Lux v. Cox , 32 F.Supp.2d 92 , 102 (W.D.N.Y., 1998) ("In conducting this analysis, the court may consider such factors as the accepted and applicable rules or standards of the sport, published guidelines, evidence of common usage, conditions that exist at similar facilities, proof of prior accidents at the same place under substantially similar circumstances, or the absence of prior accidents, or other relevant factors.").

2016In making its determination, the trial court may consider factors such as the children’s safety and well-being, In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App at 142 , as well as “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 Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations omitted). “[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 90 .

2015In assessing what attorney fees are reasonable, the trial court may consider factors including the following: [T]he skill, time, and labor involved, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services in ‘high end’ divorce actions, the likelihood that plaintiff’s counsel’s time commitment to this case precluded other employment, the amount in question and the results achieved, the expense incurred, the professional standing and experience of the attorney, and the retainer agreement. [Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619, 637 ; 671 NW2d 64 (2003).] In this case, plaintiff had three diff

2015In assessing what attorney fees are reasonable, the trial court may consider factors including the following: [T]he skill, time, and labor involved, the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar services in ‘high end’ divorce actions, the likelihood that plaintiff’s counsel’s time commitment to this case precluded other employment, the amount in question and the results achieved, the expense incurred, the professional standing and experience of the attorney, and the retainer agreement. [Olson v Olson, 256 Mich App 619, 637 ; 671 NW2d 64 (2003).] In this case, plaintiff had three diff

2005Id. at 132-134 .

1995NOTES [1] MCR 6.508(D) recognizes that the most fundamental injustice is the conviction of an innocent person and specifically allows the court to waive "the `good cause' requirement of subrule (D)(3)(a) if it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime." If the petitioner in fact demonstrates that there is a significant possibility that he is innocent, the court may consider his claim without requiring the petitioner to demonstrate good cause for his failure to raise the issue in an earlier proceeding. [2] See n 2, post at 406. [3] Id. at 408.

1995NOTES [1] MCR 6.508(D) recognizes that the most fundamental injustice is the conviction of an innocent person and specifically allows the court to waive "the `good cause' requirement of subrule (D)(3)(a) if it concludes that there is a significant possibility that the defendant is innocent of the crime." If the petitioner in fact demonstrates that there is a significant possibility that he is innocent, the court may consider his claim without requiring the petitioner to demonstrate good cause for his failure to raise the issue in an earlier proceeding. [2] See n 2, post at 406. [3] Id. at 408.