734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Concluding that Marin properly interpreted a former version of § 19b(1) as not requiring the child be in foster care for a termination petition to be considered, the court rejected father's request to declare a "but for" conflict under MCR 7.215(J)(2

Before the child was born, respondent (at the age of 18) pleaded guilty to CSC I. The victim was his nine-year-old cousin. Petitioner testified that she learned the facts of respondent's conviction after she gave birth to the child, and broke off her relationship with respondent. She later married another man. Respondent argued that the trial court's order terminating his rights was improper under the plain language of MCL 712A.19b(1) because the child was not in foster care or a guardianship when termination was ordered. However, his interpretation of the statute was directly contrary to the one adopted in Marin. The court noted that it was bound to followMarin under MCR 7.215(J)(1). Further, it concluded that Marin was properly decided, finding that "the interpretation of § 19b(1) adopted in that case is consistent with both the statutory language and the underlying legislative intent." It noted that the Legislature has amended the statute 10 times since Marin was decided, without meaningfully amending the relevant language. Further, respondent's interpretation of § 19b(1) was "patently inconsistent" with MCL 712A.1(3), which provides that all provisions in the chapter, including § 19b(1), shall be liberally construed "to afford an opportunity (where practicable) for minor children to remain in their own homes during the pendency of a termination proceeding, and in" a custodial parent's care. His interpretation was also inconsistent with the language of § 19b(1). As to petitioner's standing, the court found that respondent's argument was contrary to Huisman, and while Trejo partially overruled that case, "the standing analysis from Huisman remains intact." Affirmed. 

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405