Legal father allowed to disestablish paternity and end child support

The Michigan appeals court says a man who mistakenly believed he was the father of his girlfriend's son cannot be pursued for child support. The ruling in April 2010 overturns a decision by an Iosco County Family Court Judge who had agreed with the prosecutor's office and ordered child support in 2009. The facts of this case were distinguished from a published Ohio case. The importance of this case from my point of view is that the conclusions of law can be applied to similar cases in which a father was held liable for child support as the "presumptive father" simply because he was married to the mother when the child was born or conceived.

The facts are as follows:

April 16, 2003: Plaintiff Mother gave birth to a son. She and Defendant Father were living together. Father believed that this was his biological son and therefore the parties executed an acknowledgment of parentage.

September 2004: The relationship went south, and Defendant Father obtained a DNA test. The test confirmed he was not the child’s biological father. The parties remained together for approximately one more year.

2005: Sometime between July and August, Defendant Father moved out. 2006:

By Spring 2006, Defendant Father had cut off all contact with the mother and child.

Late January 2009: Plaintiff Mother, represented by the prosecuting attorney, file a support action against the father. The father relied upon the DNA test results. He filed a motion pursuant to MCL 722.1011 to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed.

The rationale for the T/C’s decision was that it wasn’t “equitable” to allow a revocation because of the four-and-a-half- year delay between the time when Defendant Father learned that he was not the biological father and the time he attempted the revocation. The trial court concluded that defendant’s actions had prevented plaintiff from looking for the child’s biological father.

The COA said that this reasoning made little sense under these facts because the mother as well had known for four and a half years that Defendant Father was not the child’s biological father. Thus, she was not prevented from seeking out the biological father during that time, nor was she prevented from seeking support from defendant. The COA dintinguished this case from an Ohio case also involving public assistance.

According to the COA, in the Ohio case, the trial court reasonably concluded that the children, the mother and the public had relied upon the plaintiff’s assumption of parental responsibility for a lengthy period of time and that it was inequitable to leave the children fatherless and on public benefits for survival. But here, the facts did not support the conclusion of reliance on the part of the mother. The COA said:

"It is truly unfortunate that neither parent acted earlier. Nonetheless, we conclude that defendant’s delay in attempting to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Defendant had no relationship with Colton for about three years prior to the initiation of this litigation, and plaintiff acquiesced to that state of affairs for the same time period. There is no reason to believe that plaintiff relied on the acknowledgment of parentage during that time. Under these circumstances, revocation was the proper result.”

This case, Brancher v Peters, may be read here.

Comments

[Jeanne M. Hannah]

There may be some remedies for your son, but many more facts are needed to determine that. Please call Ginger at my office Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 2 PM to schedule a telephone consultation. 1-231-275-5600

[Jeri Barker]

I would like to know how to get help for my son. He was married to a woman that cheeted on him so he left and didn't see her again, but before they got divorced she got pregnet. My son was fixed in 2000 and that was before he met her. But because the state of Michigan assumes that because they married still the child is his. My son has never seen this child nor did he ever sign the birth cert. And he went in 2009 and was tested again and he still can't have kids. But the judge said that was irrelavent. And still say he is the legal father. Is there anything he can do?

[Jeanne M. Hannah]

Dear Anne Marie Trombley,

You might go back and re-read my posts. Your impressions about what I have said are 180 degrees from the truth. I don't condemn fathers who raise children they know are not their own. Thank goodness there are some of those angels out there.

My posts speak only to the issue that as a matter of law, a man who procreates a child with a woman who is married or who marries after conception and before birth has no legal rights. Do I feel sorry for him? No. He should have kept it in his pants. Do I feel sorry for him in some instances (woman goes back to husband to cut bio dad out of the picture or mom marries another man after procreation and before birth just to cut the bio dad out of the picture) . . . well, in a way he (the bio-dad) may be taken advantage of. But the bottom line is that responsible procreation is the only way to create legal parentage.

[Anne marie trombley]

I doubt you will post this. I think your views on paternity are 100% wrong. There are dads out there who ACCEPT the fact they arent the childs father and pay support. Why would you break a bond between a child ( and the only father he/she has known?) Every situation is different. Why hurt an INNOCENT child all because of the almighty dollar? I knew a man who KNEW he was not the girls father, when he and the mother were divorced he paid child support, what in your eyes is he an idiot? Not in mine he thought about what was in the best intrest of the child.Its too bad you dont!

[Jeanne M. Hannah]

Chris,

As you can see, the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act does contain some methods by which acknowledged dads might, under the specified circumstances -- after considering the equities -- be able to disestablish paternity. As you can see by this case, the longer the man has been actively involved in a child's life, the greater the potential for a trial court to decide that the equities of the case do not warrant leaving the child without him as a father (and as a support father).

I see the rationale of this case applying to dads who were married. I may be able to give you an update in a few weeks, as I am arguing for disestablishment of paternity in a case right now where DNA proved nearly 40 years ago that Husband was not the dad. Trouble was that the ball was dropped in the Michigan Court.

My belief is that where a mother has known all along that her husband is not the father, and where another state (in a support action) held he was not the father and dismissed her support case with prejudice, the mother should not be able to enforce her right to collect support from that man.

[Chris Schmiedeke]

Great post. I enjoy reading your blog. I think what is interesting here is that the parties were not married. What would have happened had they been married?

In Texas, for the longest time, once a divorce decree was entered and a man was "found" or "adjudicated" to be the father of the child he was stuck. He was obligated to support the child even if it was later found that he was not the father through DNA testing. I had a few cases like this and the results were never good for the husband.

Texas has changed the law now and a father who signs an acknowledgment of paternity or who is adjudicated the father of the child basically has four years to contest paternity. There are MANY limitations to this, but this is the general rule.

Under your fact, in Texas, he would be out of luck and most likely continue to be obligated to support the child.