WINTER 2026EDITOR'S NOTE:
Please check our website for ANNOUNCEMENTS, UPCOMING EVENTS, and other helpful resources. INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
0 Comments
BY JANET MENDEZ (INGHAM)Hello, fellow RAM-ers! Despite this prolonged winter and excessive period of frigid cold we are having, hopefully everyone is staying warm and staying healthy. I am happy to bring you all some updates that will hopefully help get us all excited and ready for spring. It is coming….I promise!
2026 RAM Applications The updated RAM Application for 2026 is available on the RAM website. For anyone that has not renewed their membership, and for all new referees out there, I encourage you to complete your application and submit it at your earliest convenience. All of the benefits of RAM will be accessible once your membership is confirmed. Please share this information with any referees in your county that may not already be members. RAM Conference Mark your calendars! This year’s RAM conference will be held Wednesday May 20 through Friday May 22, 2026. We will be holding the conference at the H Hotel in Midland, Michigan. The staff at the H are amazing hosts, and we are looking forward to yet another outstanding experience. Remember, RAM is a certified provider of Continuing Judicial Education, so attendance at the conference will not only give you a great opportunity to network with your colleagues, relax and have a great time in Midland, but it will also earn you credit towards your required CJE for this new cycle. Registration forms will be available on the website soon, and will be announced via the listserv. But in the meantime, clear your calendars and plan on attending this don’t-miss event. Elections This year is an election year for the RAM Board. Elections will take place at the conclusion of the RAM conference and annual meeting in May. There will be at least one open seat on the board this year. There is no need to do anything at this time. A formal request for nominations will be announced shortly, but I wanted to let everyone know as soon as possible so that you can consider this great opportunity to serve and get involved. Once the request for nominations is made, we will be asking for a short statement from each interested candidate, including a brief background and comment as to why you would like to serve. I encourage you to start thinking about your statement if you think you may be interested. We Are Here For You Last, but not least, please always remember that the RAM board is here for you. There are a lot of things happening in the legal community that could and/or will have an impact on the important work that we do. We generally have members involved wherever possible so that we have a voice at the table, so to speak, and also so that we receive first hand information. All important information and updates will be shared with the membership in a variety of ways, including our new and improved Listserv, the RAM website, and the Referees Quarterly publication, all of which are available to our registered members. Additionally, you should always feel free to reach out to any board member with questions. Whether you need support, have a question, or are looking for ways to get involved in the legal community….never hesitate to let us know. RAM Board Meeting As an FYI, the next RAM Board Meeting will be held Friday April 10, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom. Information on how to connect is available on the RAM website. All RAM members are welcome to attend. That about does it for this quarter’s updates. Stay warm, and I hope to see you all in May! BY KATE WEAVER (OAKLAND)Ethics Committee, Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland), no updates since the last issue.
Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee, Referee Patrick O’Meara of Oakland County and Katelyn Andrews of Ottawa County are the representatives on this committee. Referee O’Meara reports there is some pending legislation that would affect juvenile court referees and the court rules. SB 463 of 2025 - Criminal Penalties for minors that purchase or possess or use tobacco, vapor or alternative nicotine products - Statute Cite: MCL 722.642. This would make the purchase or possession of these items misdemeanors and give the court authority to order community service and participation in a health promotion and risk reduction class. From what I have heard from the referees who handle the ordinance docket, this would be very helpful because right now there is not much they can do. SB 735 of 2025 - Modifies the definition of child neglect Statute Cite: MCL 722.622. The modification has to do with what is not considered child neglect. It is not neglect if a child is left unsupervised unless being unsupervised could reasonably cause harm to the child, or when a child engages in an “independent activity” without a parent or supervision unless the parent or person responsible disregards obvious or likely risks. They list some examples of “independent activity” as traveling to and from school, playing outdoors, or going somewhere on a bike or on foot. This was a big win for the free-range parenting lobby, or basically how most of us grew up! Proposed Amendment to MCR 3.992. Would require courts to consider a motion for post judgment relief when the underlying order was entered following a referee’s recommendation and before the time of filing for judicial review under the MCR 3.991 has elapsed. Referee Katelyn Andrews reports the Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee (JJPC) Training Workgroup has 3 main focuses: 1) juvenile justice training needs, 2) strategic planning for education and trainings for stakeholders, and 3) development of a juvenile justice training clearinghouse. The JJPC currently meets quarterly and had their last meeting on October 21, 2025. The focus of the October meeting was to go through the workgroup deliverables/action items:
BY RYAN O'NEIL (OAKLAND)Custody
Troost v. Troost, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 11, 2025 (Docket No. 372188), Montcalm County The parties married in December 2012 and had two children. They divorced in March 2020, with joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the plaintiff, and liberal parenting time for the defendant. In 2021, defendant’s parenting time was formalized under the Montcalm County Friend of the Court (FOC) policy. After plaintiff remarried in November 2022 and had another child in 2023, she sought in June 2023 to suspend defendant’s parenting time, alleging emotional and verbal abuse. At the referee hearing, however, evidence showed that CPS substantiated physical abuse of one child by plaintiff and her new husband, Shane Hornbeck. Defendant then sought emergency relief, and the trial court entered an ex parte order granting defendant temporary custody-related relief, barring Shane from contact with the children, and ordering a full custody investigation. Following an FOC report and an evidentiary hearing, the referee found no established custodial environment with either parent and concluded that defendant proved a custody change was in the children’s best interests. In November 2023, the trial court adopted the referee’s recommendation, awarding joint legal custody, primary physical custody to defendant, parenting time to plaintiff under the FOC policy, and continuing the no-contact order as to Shane. Plaintiff objected and requested de novo review. After adjournments and a partially granted motion to supplement the record, the trial court conducted a de novo hearing in June–July 2024. The court affirmed the referee’s findings, holding that proper cause or a change in circumstances existed and that awarding defendant primary physical custody was in the children’s best interests. The November 2023 order remained in effect, and plaintiff now appeals. Plaintiff first challenged the entry of the ex parte order. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument finding that, pursuant to MCR 3.207(B)(5), Plaintiff was served with the ex parte order and a notice to file objections within fourteen (14) days and schedule the matter for hearing. Plaintiff filed her objections twenty-one (21) days later and did not schedule the matter for a hearing. The Cour further found that the trial court complied with Barretta v Zhitkov, 348 Mich App 539, 557; 19 NW3d 420 (2023) by entering an ex parte order after an evidentiary hearing. The Court further found that the trial court, in complying with MCR 3.215(F)(2), did not unjustly limit Plaintiff’s ability to call new witnesses or present new evidence as part of the de novo review of the Referee’s recommendation. The Court of Appeals affirmed. BY JAMES PERRY (BAY)As of January 30, 2026
CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS Michigan Supreme Court None Court of Appeals Published decisions In re Brown, Minor, No 371986, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, October 2, 2025 Termination of parental rights case. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s findings on the three grounds for termination, (c)(i), (g), and (j). The trial court erred in focusing on Mother’s lack of housing suitable for herself and a child at an extended stay motel. The Department did not clearly identify what was inappropriate about the motel room, as it was appropriate for unsupervised visits. The Court of Appeals found Mother to have made progress in her treatment plan. Mother tested positive for marijuana, which is legal. Housing was not a basis for jurisdiction thus it was error to find termination under (c)(i). The trial court did not make specific findings for the Court of Appeals to review under (g). For (j) the focus was on the size of the motel room, not on what made it inadequate, or how that was harmful to the child. BY AGNES JURY (MASON)For this edition of the newsletter, we are pleased to introduce Referee Preston Pietszak.
At 32 years old, Referee Preston Pietszak has already built a career marked by steady growth, intellectual curiosity, and a deep sense of responsibility to the families who appear before him. A graduate of Michigan State University, where he earned dual degrees in History and Criminal Justice, Preston went on to obtain his law degree from Wayne State University in 2018. Shortly after, he began his legal career at the Allegan County Circuit Court as a law clerk. His dedication and steady competence led to promotions—first to Staff Attorney, and ultimately to his current role as Domestic Relations Referee with the Friend of the Court. Preston speaks openly about the responsibility he feels in his position. “I really do take all of the cases seriously,” he says. “I care very much about making a good decision.” In a system that can sometimes feel overwhelming or impersonal to litigants, he is mindful that his role carries real consequences for real families. One of his proudest professional moments came after a hearing in which both parties thanked him for helping them better understand the process and improve their parenting time situation. They even requested that their case remain before him. “I never thought anyone would say something like that to me,” he reflects. “It made me feel pretty good.” For Preston, that moment reinforced the impact of patience, clarity, and care in the courtroom. BY DANIEL FERENCY (OAKLAND)The Michigan Legislature is now in the second year of the two-year session 2025-2026. All bills introduced in the first year carry over into this year. Any bills that do not pass in the second year must be reintroduced in the first year of the next legislative session.
Enacted/Passed Bills Domestic Relations None yet this session. Juvenile/Abuse & Neglect None yet this session. In Committee/Other Domestic Relations HOUSE BILLS 5211-5213 JOINT CUSTODY & EQUAL PARENTING TIME PRESUMPTION AMENDMENTS This package of bills would amend the Child Custody Act and Parenting Time statute to include a presumption that joint custody and equal parenting time is in a minor child’s best interests, which could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The amendments would also prevent courts from issuing oral opinions regarding custody and parenting time, requiring findings and conclusions of law in writing. Status: These set of bills were introduced on November 4, 2025, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, no action since. HOUSE BILL 5445 CREATION OF DEDICATED FAMILY COURT DOCKET This bill would amend the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 to create a permanently assigned family court judgeship. Status: This bill was introduced on December 23, 2025, and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, no action since. BY DANIEL FERENCY (OAKLAND) To read the Court Rules Update, please open the attached .pdf document. BY MICHELLE LETOURNEAU (OAKLAND)
|
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Alicia Bianchi (Wayne)
Tyler Martinez (Oakland)
EDITORIAL STAFFArchives
March 2026
Categories
All
|