They were students at Cooley Law School in the late 1990s. She was married; he was from Buffalo, New York.
Their long-term adulterous affair eventually led to the birth of a child in 2002. Although Mother's husband was on the birth certificates of both her children born during her marriage, she informed her law school lover that he was the biological father of the child born in 2002; subsequent DNA testing confirmed this fact.
When his love child was three years old, and armed with the confirming DNA results, bio-dad sought an order of filiation in a paternity action he filed in New York state. For her part, Mother challenged the New York family court's jurisdiction, as the paternity suit did not name her husband as a necessary party, and the paternity of her second child was already established by operation of Michigan law.
Not so fast. The New York family court found that some of the couples' adulterous liaisons took place within the state of New York thus, the child could have been conceived in that state. Conceding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Mother or her husband, and acknowledging that paternity of the child had been established in accord with Michigan law, the New York family court nevertheless refused to dismiss bio-dad's paternity action, ultimately granting bio-dad's order of filiation.
Meanwhile, paternity actions were cranked-up back here in the Wayne County family court by Mother's Husband and bio-dad. All three parties sought summary disposition of the paternity issue. Bio-dad's petition sought to enforce the order of filiation issued by the New York family court; the family court judge in Wayne County agreed, citing the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution.
Mother appealed and the
Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Wayne County family court, holding that bio-dad lacked standing to sue here in Michigan. The case hinged on the definition of a child born "out of wedlock". The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the married couple did not seek a determination that their child was born out of wedlock,
bio-dad cannot seek that determination, regardless of his New York order of filiation.Bio-dad also asserted that the Wayne County family court was required to give his order from New York full force and effect under the United States Constitution. In the most interesting portion of the published opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected bio-dad's assertion, holding that the comity clause of the constitution does not apply when the issuing court lacks jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the New York court conceded it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Husband, and that the New York family court left enforcement of the order it issued to the courts in Michigan.
Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave for further appeal in an evenly divided 3-3 ruling; Justice Brian Zahra did not participate as he was on the Court of Appeals panel at the intermediate appellate court.
Justice Marilyn Kelly wrote a thoughtful
dissent, noting the case presented issues of jurisprudential significance. She is not conviced that the Court of Appeals properly concluded that the New York order was not entitled to the full faith and credit of the Wayne County family court. Justice Kelly noted that bio-dad did have proper standing in the New York family court that issued the order of filiation. Also, she noted that this order was issued and affirmed on appeal in New York prior to any paternity action being filed in Wayne County.
For these reasons, she would have granted leave to appeal so that the issues presented in the case could be resolved. For now, this question will continue to percolate throughout the family courts of our state.
DNA has long been available to determine paternity. The Michigan legislature, however, in both the child custody act and the paternity act, has been reluctant to allow such conclusive test results to disrupt an established family.
http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/info@clarkstonlegal.com
