EPA Repeals Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

2 26 Advisory Eparepealsgreenhousegasendangerment 1200x628

On February 12, 2026, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a deregulatory rule rescinding the 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding served as the legal and scientific basis for federal regulation of GHG emissions under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

The 2009 determination concluded that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare,” triggering EPA’s obligation to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles. With the repeal, EPA simultaneously eliminates federal GHG emission standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, along with associated compliance mechanisms, including credit trading, fleet averaging, and reporting requirements.

Legal Significance of the Repeal

The recission marks a substantial reinterpretation of EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act and narrows the agency’s view of how the statute applies to globally dispersed greenhouse gases.

Although the immediate regulatory rollback applies to mobile sources, eliminating the Endangerment Finding removes the foundational determination that has historically supported federal GHG regulation across multiple sectors. As a practical matter, this action may limit EPA’s ability to impose future GHG performance standards unless Congress provides new congressional authorization or a subsequent agency reversal.

Importantly, non-GHG Clean Air Act programs remain in effect. Regulated entities must continue to comply with National Ambient Air Quality requirements, hazardous air pollutant standards, permitting obligations, and other applicable federal and state environmental regulations.

Litigation and Regulatory Uncertainty

The rule is expected to face immediate legal challenges in the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Litigation could create uncertainty regarding the rule’s durability and implementation timeline.

Depending on judicial outcomes, the court could:

  • Issue a stay of the rule;
  • Remand the rule to EPA for further explanation; or
  • Vacate the repeal and reinstate the prior Endangerment Finding.

Companies should evaluate near-term compliance cost reductions against longer-term regulatory risk, including the potential for reversal under a future administration.

State-Level Greenhouse Gas Regulation and Enforcement Risk

Even if the federal Endangerment Finding remains rescinded, states may seek to address perceived regulatory gaps through:

  • State greenhouse gas emission standards;
  • Revised permitting requirements;
  • Climate-related statutory claims; and
  • Common-law climate litigation.

As a result, compliance obligations may shift rather than disappear. Multi-jurisdictional regulatory exposure remains a key consideration for manufacturers, energy companies, and transportation-related entities.

Organizations should take a proactive, risk-based approach to environmental compliance and climate governance to ensure preparedness across multiple regulatory scenarios.

For questions regarding the Endangerment Finding repeal or environmental compliance strategy, please contact Varnum’s Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Team.

Using Trusts to Improve Tax Outcomes, Control, and Certainty in Divorce Settlements

2 23 Advisory Trustsfordivorcesettlements 1200x628

Parties in a divorce often want to reach a settlement quickly. In the rush to resolve disputes, however, spouses may agree to divide assets or enter long-term payment obligations without fully considering tax basis, capital gains, estate inclusion, or future enforcement of those agreements. Incorporating estate planning strategies into divorce negotiations can help align cash flow, control, and tax outcomes while reducing post-divorce conflict.  

A trust is a legal arrangement in which a third-party trustee holds and manages property for the benefit of another person. Trusts allow parties to separate control of assets from beneficial enjoyment and embed clear, enforceable terms that might otherwise require ongoing court oversight. When structuring a property settlement, a trust can replace a fragile “pay-or-pursue” arrangement with predictable administration by an independent fiduciary.

A trust may be used to:

  • Provide a reliable income to a former spouse without relying on the payor’s ongoing cooperation
  • Direct remaining assets to children or other beneficiaries
  • Manage capital gains and estate tax exposure
  • Address future contingencies such as remarriage, inheritances, or changes in earnings

The optimal structure depends on each party’s priorities, including income certainty, flexibility to terminate benefits, estate tax efficiency, and control over ultimate beneficiaries.

Trust Structures That May Support Divorce Settlements

Lifetime QTIP Trust

When the primary goal is to provide a guaranteed income to a former spouse, a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust can require all trust income to be paid to the former spouse as beneficiary. A neutral trustee administers the trust while the settlor, or payor, retains control over who receives the remaining assets after the beneficiary’s death.

Since the trust assets are included in the income beneficiary’s estate at death, they typically receive a date of death basis adjustment, which may benefit the remainder beneficiaries. This approach favors predictability and security over flexibility and must be implemented before the divorce is finalized, while the marital deduction remains available.

Bypass or Credit Shelter Trust

If the parties want support or other payments to end upon specific future events, a bypass trust can condition or terminate income or access based on triggers such as remarriage, income thresholds, receipt of inheritances, or the passage of time. Tradeoffs may include using a lifetime gift and estate tax exemption and losing a basis adjustment at the beneficiary’s death. Certain reversionary features can restore control to the payor but may increase estate inclusion risk.

Charitable Remainder Trust

If the divorce involves the sale of an asset that has significantly appreciated, such as stock, a charitable remainder trust may offer tax advantages. The trust can sell low-basis assets without immediate capital gains tax. It then pays income to the former spouse for a defined term and distributes the remainder to a charitable organization. The contributing party may receive a charitable deduction at the time of funding. This structure can combine tax efficiency with enforceable behavioral terms.

Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust

When support obligations are secured with life insurance, an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) can keep death benefits outside the insured’s taxable estate while incorporating conditions tied to remarriage and other events. An ILIT often avoids complications associated with direct policy ownership and can provide liquidity for estate planning if needed.

Alimony Trust

When a divorce involves a business that is difficult to value or divide, an alimony trust can hold the business interest, distribute its income subject to negotiated conditions, and name children as remainder beneficiaries. This structure can reduce valuation disputes, improve governance, and create greater certainty around tax and cash flow outcomes.

The Bottom Line

Thoughtful collaboration between divorce counsel and estate planners can transform fragile settlement promises into enforceable, tax-aware structures that reduce risk for both parties. For assistance, contact a member of Varnum’s family law or estate planning practice teams.

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: Implications for Importers and Tariff Refund Strategies

2 20 Advisory Ieepatariffs 1200x628

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, rendering tariffs imposed under IEEPA unlawful from the outset. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate … importation” does not encompass the power to impose tariffs, which are a form of taxation constitutionally reserved to Congress. The Court emphasized that the word “regulate” in IEEPA has never, in any federal statute, been interpreted to include the power to tax, and that Congress has consistently delegated tariff authority “clearly and with careful constraints,” using specific terms such as “duty” or “surcharge,” accompanied by rate caps, limitations on duration, and other procedural safeguards.

The ruling’s practical effect is to invalidate the tariffs the President imposed under IEEPA beginning in early 2025, including both the “reciprocal” tariffs applied to imports from virtually all trading partners and the “drug-trafficking” tariffs applied to imports from Canada, Mexico, and China.

Implications for Clients Seeking Tariff Refunds

The Court’s opinion is silent on remedies, including whether and how importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will receive refunds. Justice Kavanaugh noted in dissent that the refund process is likely to be a “mess.” Based on estimates of IEEPA tariff revenue collected since early 2025, some economists have indicated that the federal government could have refund exposure of over $175 billion. As a general matter, importers of record (i.e., the entities that actually paid IEEPA tariffs to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)) will be the most direct beneficiaries of any refund process. Companies further down the supply chain that absorbed tariff costs indirectly face a more complex picture and should examine their purchase agreements and seek counsel to determine whether they have a viable path to recovery.

Clients who have paid IEEPA tariffs should take the following steps promptly:

Preserve documentation. All records of tariff payments, importer-of-record status, entry summaries, and related correspondence should be preserved and organized. We recommend creating a data sheet identifying each relevant import entry, tracking key details such as entry date and number, HTS classification, country of origin, and liquidation status. Importers should also review their ACE portal to confirm that their banking details on file with CBP are current to avoid delays in receiving electronic refunds.

Monitor legal developments. The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) is expected to play a central role in administering refunds, but any refund process is yet to be determined. Separately, it is possible that refunds may be obtained through CBP’s administrative channels, including the Post Summary Correction or Protest process. Clients should monitor developments closely for any procedural guidance from the courts or from CBP.

Anticipate delays. Despite the straightforward nature and itemization of tariff payments in relevant import records, the sheer volume of claims could overwhelm the system. Clients should expect any refunds to be subject to a significant lag. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previously indicated refunds could potentially be spread out over a year.

The White House Response and Alternative Tariff Authorities

The Administration has signaled that it will move quickly to reimpose equivalent tariffs under other statutory authorities. Already since the Court’s ruling, President Trump has indicated he would sign an executive order to impose a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Clients should understand, however, that these alternative statutes are more limited than IEEPA. They typically require agency investigations, public hearings, formal findings, and may impose caps on tariff rates and durations. The procedural requirements of the alternative statutes will likely slow the reimposition of tariffs and may result in rates, durations, and product coverage that differ significantly from the IEEPA tariffs. Importantly, today’s decision is limited to IEEPA’s use as a tariff authority. The President retains the ability to invoke IEEPA for other purposes — including launching investigations, freezing transactions while investigations are pending, and restricting or banning particular imports or exports.

Key Risks and Considerations

Tariff uncertainty will persist. Even with today’s ruling, the effective tariff rate on imports is expected to remain elevated due to tariffs imposed under authorities other than IEEPA (e.g., Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and other goods). Clients should not assume a full return to pre-2025 tariff levels.

Trade deal disruption. The IEEPA tariffs were instrumental in negotiating trade agreements with numerous countries. The ruling may create uncertainty around those arrangements. Clients with cross-border supply chains or contractual commitments tied to tariff-related trade deals should review those arrangements carefully.

New tariffs may be imposed rapidly. The Administration has been exploring alternative legal pathways for months. Clients should prepare for the possibility that replacement tariffs, such as the new 15% global tariff, could take effect within days or weeks under expedited executive action, even if the procedural requirements of the underlying statutes impose some delay.

We recommend that all clients with significant import exposure consult with their Varnum attorney to assess their refund eligibility, review their supply chain and contractual arrangements, and develop a strategy for navigating the period of uncertainty ahead.

Michigan’s Data Center Moment: Navigating the Moratorium Maze

2 19 Advisory Midatacentermovement 1200x628

Michigan is emerging as one of the most compelling jurisdictions for hyperscale and enterprise data center development. In addition to ideal land-use conditions, Michigan offers significant tax incentives, including an exemption from the 6 percent sales and use tax on certain data center equipment and construction materials. Michigan also provides regulatory options for power supply that are not available in other states.

As interest from sophisticated developers accelerates, however, a familiar pattern is taking hold across Michigan’s townships and municipalities: the preemptive development moratorium.

The Michigan Data Center Development Landscape

Dozens of Michigan municipalities, many of them well-positioned for data center siting due to infrastructure, land availability, and utility access, have enacted temporary moratoria on data center development.

While courts have recognized a municipality’s authority to adopt moratoria under certain circumstances, there is no express statutory authority for development moratoria in Michigan. However, moratoria are not new to developers in the state. Municipalities have used them to pause development while reviewing or amending zoning ordinances and to delay or discourage projects they oppose. In practice, a moratorium can function either as a shield or as a sword.

Moratoria vary widely in scope and defensibility. Some are narrowly tailored and supported by clear findings, while others are broad and more vulnerable to legal challenge. Most reflect a common reality: local zoning ordinances drafted decades ago did not contemplate modern data centers, particularly their scale, energy demands, and operational intensity.

Under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and related statutes, local governments retain authority over zoning approvals for data centers. The interaction among zoning authorities, municipal powers, and utility regulation creates both strategic and operational obstacles. The timing of site control, pre-application engagement with local officials, and the overall project posture can affect a development’s trajectory.

For developers unfamiliar with Michigan’s legal and regulatory framework, an early strategy is critical.

What Data Center Developers Should Know About Michigan Moratoria

A moratorium is not necessarily a dead end. Michigan law imposes substantive and procedural constraints on a municipality’s authority to enact or extend a development moratorium. The enforceability of any specific moratorium depends on its language, legislative findings, procedural history, and factual context. Generally, a valid moratorium should be tied to protecting public health, safety, and welfare.

Beyond zoning, Michigan data center projects implicate a complex web of permitting, environmental compliance, energy regulation, and economic development incentives. Key considerations may include:

  • Brownfield redevelopment incentives
  • Environmental permitting and compliance
  • Large-load interconnection and electric service agreements
  • Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)
  • Real estate acquisition and site control strategy
  • Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs)
  • State and local tax incentives

The path to energization is rarely linear. Developers who approach these workstreams sequentially, rather than in parallel, often face avoidable delays or disadvantages. A coordinated, Michigan-specific strategy can significantly reduce entitlement risks and timeline uncertainty.

Working with Varnum on Michigan Data Center Projects

Varnum advises data center developers, owners, and investors across the full lifecycle of Michigan projects. Our team works closely with municipalities, utilities, and state agencies across the state and brings integrated experience in:

  • Land use and zoning
  • Real estate transactions
  • Environmental permitting and compliance
  • Energy and utility regulation
  • Tax incentives and economic development programs
  • Public finance

We help clients structure early engagement to preserve optionality, evaluate moratorium risk, coordinate parallel workstreams, and move efficiently, from site selection to certificate of occupancy.

Michigan’s data center market is rapidly expanding. Developers positioned with a thoughtful legal and regulatory strategy will be better equipped to navigate risk and advance efficiently.

For guidance on Michigan data center development, zoning moratoria, or energy strategy, contact a member of Varnum’s Energy Practice Team.

The Rise of CIPA Website Tracking Claims

2 17 Advisory Cipawebtracking 1200x628

Businesses nationwide are facing a sharp increase in claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a 1967 statute originally designed to address wiretapping and eavesdropping.  

Today, plaintiffs’ attorneys are using CIPA to challenge common website technologies, including cookies, analytics tools, session replay software, and chat features. Many companies are caught off guard when they receive a demand letter alleging unlawful website tracking, followed by the threat of litigation.

Thousands of CIPA website tracking claims have been asserted, and filings continue to rise.

What Is the California Invasion of Privacy Act?

CIPA was enacted to protect individuals from the unlawful interception or recording of private communications. While the law originally focused on telephone wiretapping, plaintiffs and some courts now interpret it to apply to digital communications and online activity.

Under these theories, certain website tracking tools may be characterized as unlawfully “intercepting” or “recording” user communications without adequate consent.

CIPA allows private lawsuits and provides for statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation, even without proof of actual harm.

Why Are CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits Increasing?

CIPA claims have surged as a relatively small group of plaintiffs’ firms and serial litigants target routine website practices that were not contemplated when the law was enacted.

These cases are appealing to the plaintiff because of:

  • Statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation
  • The potential of class action certification
  • Inconsistent court rulings on how CIPA applies to online tracking

In 2025, California lawmakers considered Senate Bill 690 (SB 690), which would have limited CIPA’s application to certain common business uses of website technologies, but the bill ultimately did not pass. While similar legislation may be introduced in the future, any change may not take effect immediately or apply retroactively.

The absence of a statutory safe harbor continues to create uncertainty for businesses and may incentivize additional filings.

What Website Technologies Trigger CIPA Claims?

Recent CIPA website tracking lawsuits have targeted widely used tools, including:

  • Website cookies and tracking pixels
  • Analytics and marketing tools
  • Session replay or keystroke monitoring software
  • Chat widgets and contact forms

In many cases, the challenged tools are standard third-party services used for marketing, customer support, and website optimization.

How Do CIPA Claims Typically Begin?

Most CIPA disputes begin with a demand letter alleging unlawful interception of website communications. Some matters resolve before a lawsuit is filed; others proceed to formal litigation.

Business Risks and Compliance Considerations

Even defensible CIPA claims can be costly. Potential exposures include:

  • Statutory damages
  • Attorneys’ fees
  • Class action defense costs
  • Reputational risks

Because CIPA provides statutory damages without requiring proof of actual harm, businesses often must evaluate risk early and make strategic decisions under significant legal and financial uncertainty.

Businesses Facing CIPA Claims

Varnum regularly advises businesses responding to CIPA demand letters and defending website privacy litigation at both the pre-suit and litigation stages.

If your organization has received a CIPA demand letter or lawsuit, or has questions about website privacy litigation trends, contact your Varnum attorney or a member of Varnum’s Data Privacy or Litigation Practice teams.

What Employers Should Know and Do When an Employee Dies

2 12 Advisory Employeedeath 1200x628

The death of an employee is, above all, a human loss. In the days that follow, employers are often called on to address final wages, payroll taxes, and employee benefits in a way that supports the employee’s family while remaining compliant with federal and state law. The most effective response combines empathy with a clear, documented process grounded in applicable statutes, plan documents, and regulatory requirements.  

Final Wages and Payroll Tax Reporting After an Employee’s Death

Remaining compensation generally belongs to the employee’s estate unless state law permits payment directly to a surviving spouse or other designated individual. Employers should obtain a certified death certificate and appropriate estate documentation before issuing payment and should collect a W-9 form from each payee.

Wages paid in the year of death are generally subject to FICA and FUTA but not federal income tax withholding and are reported on the decedent’s W-2 form. Payments made after the year of death are typically reported on a 1099 form to the recipient. Employers should cancel any pending direct deposits and handle uncashed checks in accordance with state wage payment and probate laws to avoid misdirected funds.

All outstanding compensation should be reviewed, including salary, accrued paid time off where required by law or policy, bonuses, commissions, and deferred compensation, to determine amounts owed and proper timing and tax reporting.

Benefits Administration: Health Insurance, Retirement Plans, and Life Insurance

Plan vendors and insurers should be notified promptly, and beneficiary designations should be located and reviewed. This step is critical for administering group health coverage, retirement benefits, and life insurance proceeds.

For group health plans, employers should coordinate coverage termination and issue required COBRA notices. Surviving spouses and dependents are commonly eligible for up to 36 months of COBRA coverage, though different rules may apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees.

Retirement plan distributions must comply with the governing plan documents, including rules on vesting, employer contributions, and payment timing. Distributions are generally reported on 1099 forms. For group life insurance, employers should assist beneficiaries and ensure the insurer receives all required documentation to process claims in accordance with policy terms.

Work-Related Deaths, Workers’ Compensation, and Privacy Obligations

If an employee’s death is work-related, employers must report the fatality to OSHA within eight hours and follow applicable workers’ compensation procedures. Survivor and burial benefits vary by state, so prompt coordination with the workers’ compensation carrier is essential.

Employers should also protect the confidentiality of the employee’s personal and protected health information. Communications should be centralized through designated HR or benefits personnel to minimize privacy and compliance risks.

Practical Steps and Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Verify legal authority before making any payments and ensure payroll, HR, and benefits teams are aligned on documentation requirements, including death certificates, letters of appointment, and W-9 forms. Legal requirements may vary by state.
  • Do not rely on existing direct deposit instructions. Financial institutions may restrict access after death, increasing the risk of misdirected funds.
  • Coordinate payment timing carefully. Wages paid in the year of death are generally reported on W-2 forms, while payments made later are typically reported on 1099 forms.
  • Rely on plan documents and plan administrators when addressing health, retirement, and life insurance benefits, and confirm that administrators are prepared to communicate with beneficiaries and process distributions.

A Compassionate and Compliant Response

Clear processes, careful documentation, and adherence to plan terms and applicable law help reduce risk while honoring the employee and supporting their family. Employers facing these issues may benefit from guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.

For assistance, contact a member of Varnum’s Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation practice team to help navigate these requirements and respond quickly, respectfully, and in compliance with the law.

H-1B Lottery 2027 Registration Opens March 4

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the initial registration period for the fiscal year 2027 H-1B cap will open at noon EST on March 4, 2026, and run through noon EST on March 19, 2026. The USCIS registration fee remains $215. 

USCIS will select 85,000 petitions through a lottery process: 20,000 for the U.S. advanced degree category and 65,000 for the general category. Applicants selected in the lottery should be notified by March 31, 2026, and will have until June 30, 2026, to submit the H-1B petition.

New this year: Selection will be wage-weighted, with beneficiaries receiving one to four entries based on the Department of Labor wage level offered. A $100,000 fee applies to all applicants outside the U.S.

Varnum’s immigration attorneys have begun collecting information to prepare for the March registration period and to complete the wage-level analysis. Employers with employees on F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT) or candidates requiring cap-subject H-1Bs should contact us to prepare for registration.

Legal Planning for Minor Children During Parental Absence in Michigan

2 9 Advisory Guardianshipimmigration 1200x628

Parents may face situations that make it difficult or temporarily impossible to care for their minor children. These situations can arise unexpectedly and may last longer than anticipated. Having a clear plan in place helps ensure that children are cared for by trusted adults with the legal authority to act when parents cannot.

Michigan law offers several legal tools that allow parents to prepare for a temporary separation and designate who may step in and care for their children. Implementing these measures in advance can ensure continuity of care, reduce stress, and help avoid unnecessary court involvement.

Why Advance Planning for Minor Children Matters 

When a parent is unavailable, another adult’s ability to care for a child often depends on legal authority. Schools, medical providers, and other institutions typically require documentation before legally recognizing anyone other than a parent.

Without advance planning, caregivers may be forced to involve the court in an already difficult situation. Proactive legal planning gives trusted adults the authority they need to make medical, educational, and day-to-day decisions and helps ensure children experience as little disruption as possible.

Legal Tools Available Under Michigan Law 

Michigan law provides several options to address temporary parental absence. Each tool serves a different purpose, and in many cases, works best when used in combination. 

Temporary Delegation of Parental Authority in Michigan

One commonly used option is a temporary delegation of parental authority. This document authorizes a parent to designate another adult to make decisions regarding a child’s care, education, and medical treatment.

Under Michigan law, this delegation is time-limited and may not exceed 180 days, and can be revoked by the parent at any time. Because of its temporary nature, this tool is well-suited for addressing immediate or short-term needs when a parent expects to resume care and wishes to avoid court involvement.

Parental Nomination of a Guardian for a Minor Child

Parents may also nominate a guardian for a minor child in advance through a will or another written document signed by the parent and witnessed by at least two individuals.

A parental appointment of a guardian does not automatically grant authority. Under Michigan Law, it becomes effective only if specific statutory conditions are met, such as when both parents are deceased, legally incapacitated, or no longer have parental rights. When those conditions are met, the nominated guardian’s authority becomes effective upon the acceptance being filed with the appropriate probate court. 

Even when those conditions are not met, a guardian nomination remains an important planning tool. It clearly documents a parent’s wishes and must be given priority by the court if a guardianship proceeding becomes necessary.

Court-Appointed Guardianship in Michigan

If a parent’s absence exceeds the anticipated timeframe and they are unable to resume care, court involvement may be required to establish guardianship. Michigan courts may appoint a guardian when statutory circumstances exist, including when parental rights are terminated or suspended, when a child resides with someone who lacks authority, or when both parents are confined in a place of detention.

Courts may appoint either a full guardian or a limited guardian. A full guardian generally has the authority of a custodial parent but is not personally responsible for the child’s financial support. A limited guardianship, created with parental consent and a court-approved placement plan, is often used when the parent expects to resume care after a defined period.

Supporting Documents and Practical Preparation

In addition to formal legal instruments, parents should consider assembling practical documents to assist caregivers. These may include medical consent forms, releases of confidential or privacy information, HIPAA authorizations, school authorization documents, emergency contact information, and copies of identification, insurance cards, birth certificates, and passports.

Parents of U.S. citizen children may wish to proactively apply for passports. Parents of non-U.S. citizen children should ensure travel and immigration documents remain valid. Written guidance on medical needs, educational services, daily routines, and trusted contacts can further support continuity of care.

Parents may also consider storing copies of key documents and account information with a trusted contact and/or in secure, encrypted digital storage accessible without relying on the parent’s phone. This may include shared cloud storage or a password manager that stores login credentials and recovery information. Parents should also be mindful of two-factor authentication requirements and take steps to ensure continued access to important accounts, such as maintaining backup authentication codes or authorizing a secondary device. Some parents may also find it helpful to use tools such as multilingual apps that help create emergency plans and send alerts to designated contacts, including loved ones or attorneys. Having these materials readily available can help caregivers act promptly and reduce disruption for the child.

Final Considerations for Parents 

Advanced planning cannot eliminate every risk, but having a valid delegation of authority and a written guardian nomination in place can help promote continuity of care, reduce delays, and provide the court with clear guidance regarding the parent’s intent. These tools are temporary and revocable and do not permanently transfer parental rights.

Parents should also be aware that children aged 14 or older may have certain rights under Michigan law regarding guardianship decisions. 

Legal planning for minor children often involves overlapping considerations related to family law, estate planning, and, in some cases, immigration law. Attorneys in Varnum’s Family, Estate Planning, and Immigration Practice Teams regularly assist parents with these issues and provide tailored advice to individual circumstances.