The Kronzek Firm PLC

09/15/2026

The criminal defense team at The Kronzek Firm confirms that following a landmark ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court on September 9, 2026, the state of Michigan has removed over 20,000 names—nearly half of the active public registry—from the online Michigan S*x Offender Registry. Our Supreme Court decision dictates that 2021 amendments to the S*x Offender Registration Act cannot be retroactively applied to offenses committed before July 1, 2011. The court ruled that this retroactive application of a later statute was unconstitutional and is considered a punishment.

08/05/2026

For more than 25 years, Michigan courts generally prevented criminal defendants from introducing certain mental-health evidence to challenge whether they actually formed the intent required to commit a crime. That changed recently with a landmark decision by the Michigan Supreme Court.

In People v. Madison, the Court overruled its earlier decision in People v. Carpenter, restoring the ability of Michigan criminal defendants, in appropriate cases, to present relevant mental-health evidence bearing on whether the prosecution has proven the required criminal intent. This is a significant development in Michigan criminal law.

It's important to understand that this is not the same as an insanity defense. Michigan's insanity defense, governed by MCL 768.21a, remains a separate legal defense with its own strict legal requirements. The Court's decision in Madison recognizes that mental-health evidence may also be relevant to whether the prosecution can prove the specific intent required for certain crimes.

Every criminal case is different, and this ruling will not apply in every prosecution. However, for some people facing serious felony charges, it could make a meaningful difference in how their case is defended.

At The Kronzek Firm, we stay on top of important changes in Michigan law because our clients deserve every defense the law allows.

If you or someone you care about has been charged with a serious crime anywhere in the southern half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, don't wait to get experienced legal representation.

📞 Call us anytime, 24/7, at 866-7NO-JAIL (866-766-5245).

08/04/2026

At The Kronzek Firm, we have spent decades standing beside young people and their families throughout Michigan's Lower Peninsula, aggressively defending juveniles and adults facing criminal charges. That's why we welcome an important step forward for juvenile justice in Michigan.

Michigan has a new law that helps ensure every young person in Michigan has access to legal representation, reinforcing the constitutional right to counsel guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.

For families navigating the juvenile justice system, having experienced legal representation can make a meaningful difference. Access to an experienced attorney helps protect constitutional rights and promotes a fair legal process for children accused of crimes in Michigan.

The legislation follows years of work by our State Bar of Michigan and a coalition of organizations dedicated to juvenile justice reform. We also have new legislation allowing certain anonymous juvenile justice information to be shared with researchers to help guide future policy improvements.

At The Kronzek Firm, we remain committed to protecting the rights of juveniles and adults accused of crime, throughout the lower half of Michigan. If your child has been accused of a crime, it is important to understand your legal options as early as possible.

Call now to connect with business.

08/01/2026

Michigan Parenting Plans: Why Yours Keeps Blowing Up — And What To Do About It

If your parenting plan feels like a battlefield instead of a roadmap, there’s usually one reason: it was written for parents who actually co‑parent.

Most Michigan parenting time schedules floating around today were drafted decades ago. They were built for cooperative parents — the kind who wave at each other in the school pickup line and never dream of weaponizing a vague sentence in a court order.

But that’s not your reality.

You’ve watched your ex “accidentally” book a vacation over your holiday. You’ve seen a friendly request turn into pressure the moment you didn’t cave. And yet your parenting plan still reads like it was designed for the co‑parent you wish you had, instead of the one you’re actually dealing with.

That mismatch is where the chaos comes from.

Every gray area becomes an argument.
Every unclear paragraph becomes leverage.
Every holiday, break, and milestone becomes a negotiation — or a fight.

And the kids feel it most.
We’re talking about Christmas mornings, spring breaks, summer trips — the memories that shape their childhood. When a parenting plan omits one critical paragraph, those moments are wrapped in tension rather than joy.

A parenting plan should protect your children, not create conflict. When it’s drafted with precision — and with your family’s dynamics in mind — it becomes a shield instead of a weapon.

If your current plan is causing stress, confusion, or constant battles, it’s time to fix it. We can help design a plan that actually works - - for real parents, in real Michigan cases, with real-life challenges.

Call now to connect with business.

07/22/2026

Michigan's Highest Court Just Changed the Rules on Kids, Car Insurance, and Custody Orders

If you're divorced and share custody of your children, this new Michigan Supreme Court decision matters to you. The court's opinion arose with an interesting ruling about the ways a child's domicile should be determined. The interesting part is that the underlying case involved Michigan's automobile no fault law.

Today, in Frownfelter v Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled a 2013 case called Grange Ins Co of Mich v Lawrence. Under Grange, courts were required to treat a custody order as the final word on where a child was "domiciled" — meaning the parent named in the order determined which parent's car insurance had to cover the child in an accident, even if that's not where the child actually spent most of their time.

This case shows exactly why that rule caused problems. McKenna Frownfelter's parents divorced in 2011, and their custody order gave them a 50/50 split. But over the years, without ever changing the paperwork, she ended up spending about 75% of her time at her mom's house. When she was badly injured in a car accident leaving her dad's house one morning, the insurance companies fought over who was on the hook — and the lower courts sided with the old paper order instead of reality.

The Supreme Court said that's not good enough. Going forward, a custody order is just a starting point. Courts now have to look at the real facts: where the child actually spends most of their time, where they actually sleep most nights, and other practical factors — not just what a years-old court order says.

What does this mean for you? If your actual parenting time schedule doesn't match your custody order anymore, that mismatch could create real insurance headaches for your family down the road. It's worth having your order reviewed to make sure it reflects your current reality.

Questions about your custody order or how it might affect your family? We're here to help. KronzekFirm.com

07/08/2026

Michigan Supreme Court: Being High Can Make a Miranda Waiver Invalid — Here's Why That Matters

The Michigan Supreme Court just issued an important ruling on Miranda rights, and it's worth understanding if you or someone you know is ever questioned by police.

In People v. Soriano, the defendant had taken a large amount of L*D before an alleged sexual assault. Roughly two hours later, while still showing signs of confusion and erratic behavior, he was taken to a hospital, read his Miranda rights, and made an incriminating statement to a Grand Traverse County sheriff's deputy. That statement became a central piece of evidence at trial, and a jury convicted him of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving pe*******on.

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction in a 6-1 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Kimberly Thomas. The Court's reasoning is important for anyone who thinks Miranda rights are a simple checkbox: voluntary intoxication doesn't automatically invalidate a Miranda waiver. The real question is whether the person had the mental capacity, at that moment, to actually understand the rights they were giving up. Our criminal defense team understands that voluntary intoxication has always been a difficult defense in Michigan courts.

Courts look at the totality of the circumstances — age, experience with law enforcement, education, and background all matter. Here, the short gap between the defendant's documented erratic, hallucinatory behavior and the Miranda warning was enough for the Court to conclude he couldn't have truly understood what he was waiving, even though the worst of the hallucinations had passed by the time he was questioned.

The Court also rejected the idea that the error was "harmless." The Court of Appeals had reasoned that other evidence was strong enough to convict regardless. The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that the improperly admitted statement was too central to the prosecution's case on intent — a required element for this specific charge — to say the jury would have reached the same result without it. The case now returns to the trial court.

Why does this matter beyond one case? Because it's a reminder that a Miranda waiver here in Michigan isn't just about whether the words were read aloud — it's about whether the person being questioned was actually capable of understanding them. That distinction can be the difference between evidence being used against someone and evidence being thrown out.

If you or a family member has been questioned by police — especially under circumstances involving intoxication, injury, youth, or mental impairment — the details of how and when Miranda rights were given can matter enormously to your case. Our Michigan criminal defense attorneys have spent more than 32 years handling these issues in courts across the state, and we know how to scrutinize whether a waiver actually holds up.

Questions about your rights during a police interrogation? Give us a call at 866-7NoJail (866 766 5245) during business hours. We're here to help.

Call now to connect with business.

07/06/2026

Big news for Michigan probationers from the criminal defense team at The Kronzek Firm: 🌿⚖️

The Michigan Supreme Court just handed down a major decision that affects anyone on probation who legally uses recreational ma*****na. In People v. Hess, our Michigan Supreme Court ruled that judges CANNOT ban lawful ma*****na use as a probation condition just because it's still illegal under federal law.

Here's the backstory: the defendant in this case was on probation for a retail fraud plea. She wasn't allowed to use ma*****na as a condition of that probation. After testing positive twice, she was hit with probation violations and lost her Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA) status. She argued that since her use was legal under Michigan's Regulation and Taxation of Ma*****na Act (MRTMA), the ban on her probation shouldn't stand.

The Supreme Court agreed with her. They pointed back to an earlier case, and confirmed that federal ma*****na law doesn't override Michigan's own voter-approved ma*****na protections. Bottom line: courts have to follow Michigan law when setting probation conditions, unless federal law actually takes precedence — and here, it doesn't.

But here's the important part people need to understand: this ruling does NOT mean every probationer now has an unrestricted right to use ma*****na. The Court kept this decision narrow. It only said judges can't impose a blanket ban based solely on ma*****na's federal illegality. The Court specifically left open whether judges can still restrict MRTMA-compliant ma*****na use on a case-by-case basis — for example, if it relates to someone's rehabilitation, criminal history, or substance abuse issues. That question is still unresolved and will likely come up in future Michigan appeals.

So if you're on probation or facing sentencing in Michigan, don't assume all ma*****na restrictions are automatically off the table. Courts still have to look at the specific facts of each case.

This is exactly the kind of legal development that can make a real difference in how a case is handled — and why staying informed on Michigan criminal law matters.

Call now to connect with business.

06/27/2026

The Traverse City CPS Case: A Wake-Up Call for Michigan Parents

Like many of you, our team at The Kronzek Firm has been closely following the recent reports regarding the Pete Buttigieg family in Traverse City. It is a deeply unsettling story: a family targeted by a malicious, anonymous, and false report to Children's Protective Services (CPS), leading to police involvement and the traumatic 24-hour separation of the parents from their four-year-old twins.

While the Buttigieg family’s experience is garnering national headlines, we want to be clear: the devastating process they endured is an all-too-familiar reality for countless Michigan families we represent every single day.

What Really Happened?

Authorities confirmed that the report targeting the Buttigieg family was a hoax. The anonymous caller fabricated a story about violent crimes in Alabama—a place the family had never even been. Yet, despite the lack of initial evidence, the system’s "shoot first, aim second" approach was triggered. This resulted in forensic interviews and the forced separation of a family before the allegations were ever substantiated. Let's be clear. These false reports are common. We see them during custody battles, family disputes, school rivalries, and broken friendships amongst other equally absurd excuses.

The Broken System We See Every Week

As defense attorneys who specialize in representing parents against CPS, we see this mechanism at work constantly. Too often, a single anonymous, unfounded allegation is enough to turn a family’s life upside down.

Here is what we see regularly:

Defaulting to Separation: The system frequently prioritizes the sudden "emergency" removal of children or the restriction of parental contact as an initial response, even when the danger is hypothetical or completely fabricated.

The Weight of "Forensic Interviews": The process of subjecting young children to interviews with strangers, outside of the presence of their loving parents, is inherently traumatizing—regardless of the final outcome.

The Burden of Proof: Families are often left scrambling to prove their innocence against allegations they aren't even permitted to understand fully, all while the state’s "emergency" procedures are already in motion.

We Need Child Welfare Reform in Michigan

Mayor Pete’s experience must serve as a catalyst for meaningful change. Child welfare reform here in Michigan is long overdue. While we recognize that CPS workers have a difficult job and that there are times when removal is necessary to protect children from genuine, immediate danger, the current process often inflicts more trauma on children than the very situations they are supposedly being protected from. Children frequently suffer this child abuse at the hands of CPS workers that are hired to protect them from child abuse.

If you are a parent facing a Michigan CPS investigation, do not wait until the damage is done. The system will be overwhelming, but you do not have to navigate it alone. Our warriors fight to protect children from being abused by the child abuse system.

Our experienced CPS defense team at The Kronzek Firm is committed to protecting parental rights and ensuring that families are treated with the dignity and fairness they deserve under the law. If your family is under investigation, reach out to us today.

05/18/2026

Last night in East Lansing, Michigan, something happened that should concern every Michigan voter who believes in the First Amendment and accountability.

At The Kronzek Firm, we are a team of attorneys who took an oath to support, defend, and uphold the United States Constitution — including the First Amendment and its protections for free speech and open public discourse. Let's remember that the Constitution has served us well for 250 years.

That is why we are deeply alarmed and offended by the actions taken by the Michigan State University Board of Trustees during a hastily called special Sunday night meeting on May 17, 2026.

By a 5–3 vote, the Board adopted a new “Ethics Code” that appears designed to silence elected trustees who disagree with the board majority. Let’s be clear about what this means:

• Elected trustees — elected directly by Michigan voters — are now reportedly prohibited from publicly disagreeing with board decisions.

• Trustees are expected to demonstrate “loyalty” to the institution, which many will understandably interpret as loyalty to the majority’s agenda.

• Trustees may be restricted from sharing information with the public, even when voters deserve transparency from the officials they elected.

• Trustees who speak out may face punishment, including censure, exclusion from events, and loss of reimbursements.

Regardless of political affiliation or opinion about any individual trustee, every Michigan citizen should be troubled when elected officials are discouraged from speaking openly to the public that elected them.

The answer to disagreement in a democracy is not enforced silence.

Universities should be places where open debate, differing viewpoints, and transparency are protected — not suppressed.

Michigan voters deserve elected representatives who can speak freely, ask difficult questions, and communicate honestly with the public without fear of retaliation.

This issue goes far beyond campus politics. It touches the core principles of free speech, government transparency, and democratic accountability.

Every citizen should be paying attention.

05/14/2026

Big news for Michigan family law from our Lansing family law attorneys.

In a new published decision, our Michigan Court of Appeals issued an important ruling in Winkler v. Winkler, a Roscommon County custody case that now impacts family courts across the entire state of Michigan.

The Court upheld the trial court’s decisions awarding sole legal custody to the father and keeping the child enrolled in the Houghton Lake school district. The appellate court also agreed that the trial court properly handled the evidence and correctly analyzed the child’s best-interest factors.

But the Court of Appeals drew a clear legal line when it came to one part of the lower court’s order.

The trial court had required both parents to complete psychological evaluations before either parent could file future motions involving custody or parenting time. The Court of Appeals ruled that this requirement violated Michigan law.

According to the Court, MCL 722.27(1)(c) already establishes the legal standard for seeking a custody or parenting-time modification: a parent must show “proper cause” or a “change in circumstances.” Courts cannot add extra hurdles that are not authorized by statute.

The Court explained that judges may still order psychological evaluations after a motion is filed if those evaluations are relevant to custody, parenting time, or the child’s best interests. However, courts cannot block parents from even filing a motion unless they first complete psychological testing.

The ruling also reinforces that trial courts must use legally authorized tools — such as sanctions for frivolous or excessive filings — rather than restricting access to the court system through unauthorized preconditions.

This is a significant decision for Michigan parents, family law attorneys, referees, and judges because it clarifies the limits of judicial authority in custody and parenting-time disputes.

At The Kronzek Firm, we closely monitor major appellate decisions affecting Michigan families and parental rights statewide.