denial of a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration de novo. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. Bollman, 505 F.3d 498, 501-02 (6th Cir.2007). Under the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration clauses in commercial contracts “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. “[Qjuestions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)); see also Mazera v. Varsity Ford Mgmt. Servs., 565 F.3d 997, 1001 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). However, “a court may order arbitration of a
recognizing strong preference that children live in their own homes with their own families recognizing rule 403s strong presumption in favor of admissibility recognizing that a court must balance the policy in favor of hearing a litigants claims on the merits with the policy in favor of finality recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination