Legal Opinion · Dissent

Porter v. Hill

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 2013No. Docket No. 306562Published

1DissentBoonstra, J.

I respectfully dissent, for the reasons that follow.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURE

At issue in this case is whether the plaintiff grandparents of two minor children have a right to seek grandparenting time under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq. Of particular significance in the context of this case are the facts that (a) the children’s biological father, Russell Porter, who is plaintiffs’ son, is deceased, and (b) before Russell’s death, his parental *302rights were terminated by court order. Following Russell’s death, plaintiffs sought grandparenting time. That request was opposed by…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Lansing Schools Education Ass'n v. Lansing Board of EducationMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. MungoMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  4. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 2002

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API