Court rule · Michigan · Family procedure
Michigan authorizes informal domestic-relations docket pilot in four circuits
The pilot order specifies hearing procedures, removal options and evidence rules; the order was effective immediately, with case processing to begin by January 2027 when courts are equipped.
Published November 3, 2026 · Reviewed by David Martino
The Michigan Supreme Court has authorized a pilot informal domestic-relations docket in four circuit courts. Administrative Order 2026-5, adopted October 14, 2026, took effect immediately. It authorizes participating courts to implement the pilot before January 1, 2027 and states that case processing will begin by that date when the courts are equipped.
The pilot covers the 8th Circuit Court in Montcalm County only, and the 14th, 17th and 48th Circuit Courts. New domestic-relations actions assigned to judges designated by the State Court Administrative Office begin on the informal docket, except initial personal protection orders. The order aims to provide an alternative court process for people who may have difficulty in a formal setting because of trauma, lack of representation, or both.
Either party may seek removal from the informal docket. The order allows a request for a de novo hearing after a matter is presented to a referee, or a request to remove a case at least 14 days before a dispositive hearing or trial; a court may modify or waive that time restriction for good cause. A formal pleading is not required for the removal request. The court may also remove a case if it decides the informal docket will be ineffective.
The order sets out modified procedures for hearings and evidence. Except as permitted by the court, parties ordinarily cross-examine one another and witnesses through the court. If an expert report is entered and either party wants to examine the expert, the expert must be sworn and questioned by the parties’ attorneys, the parties or the court. The Michigan Rules of Evidence do not govern admissibility in these cases except for privilege and relevance; the court may use the rules as a guide to reliability and weight. Decisions remain binding and subject to appellate review under the applicable rules.
Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Zahra and Bolden. The dissent agreed with the accessibility goals but identified concerns raised during public comment about the opt-out structure, information provided to parties and due-process safeguards. The order itself remains effective; individual court implementation dates were not established in this report.