999 N.W.2d 433
Mich.2023Background
- Carrie Pueblo and Rachel Haas were long-term partners who held a private commitment ceremony in 2007; Haas conceived by IVF and gave birth in 2008; Pueblo has no biological or adoptive connection to the child.
- Pueblo alleged both women parented the child from birth and after separation sought custody, parenting time, and child support under Michigan’s Child Custody Act (CCA).
- The trial court granted summary disposition for lack of standing and later dismissed with prejudice; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Lake v Putnam.
- Pueblo sought review in the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted leave to decide whether Obergefell requires extending the equitable-parent doctrine to unmarried same-sex partners who were barred from marrying pre‑Obergefell.
- The Supreme Court held Pueblo may pursue standing as an equitable parent, adopted a threshold “but‑for” test (preponderance standard) to determine whether the parties would have married but for the unconstitutional marriage ban, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the equitable-parent doctrine should be extended to a former same-sex partner who did not give birth or share genetics with the child | Pueblo: Obergefell’s recognition of marriage equality and the “constellation of benefits” requires extending equitable-parent status to those unconstitutionally barred from marrying | Haas: Doctrine is limited to marriage-born or married persons; courts should not retroactively transform nonmarital relationships into marriages | Yes. Narrow extension for those who were unlawfully denied the ability to marry; Pueblo may attempt to prove equitable parenthood |
| What threshold test establishes standing for such would‑be equitable parents | Pueblo: courts should allow equitable-parent claims where de facto parental relationship exists; referenced multi-factor intent evidence | Haas: Adopting a retroactive ‘would have married’ test is speculative and creates major legal ripple effects | Court adopts a preponderance standard requiring proof that the parties would have married before the child’s conception or birth but for Michigan’s unconstitutional ban; courts may consider illustrative Madrone factors (nonexhaustive) |
| Whether Pueblo’s pleadings survive summary disposition on standing | Pueblo: pleadings allege shared parenting, desire for parental rights, and willingness to pay support—sufficient to proceed | Haas: Pueblo lacks biological/adoptive ties and standing; dismissal proper | Pueblo’s complaint survives MCR 2.116(C)(8) as to standing; remand for evidentiary hearing on the but‑for showing and, if met, a best‑interests custody determination |
| Effect of prior precedent (Lake and Van) | Pueblo: Lake shouldn’t bar relief given Obergefell and equitable considerations | Haas: Lake (and Van) control; doctrine confined to marriage contexts and left to Legislature | Court overruled Lake to the extent inconsistent; did not overrule Van and distinguished Van as involving parties who chose not to marry when marriage was available |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (holding same‑sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and describing marriage’s “constellation of benefits,” including stability for children)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich. App. 601 (1987) (Michigan Court of Appeals recognizing equitable‑parent doctrine for nonbiological spouses in marriage)
- Van v. Zahorik, 460 Mich. 320 (1999) (Michigan Supreme Court declined to extend equitable‑parent doctrine beyond marriage)
- Lake v. Putnam, 316 Mich. App. 247 (2016) (Court of Appeals denied extension of doctrine to never‑married same‑sex partners; partially overruled)
- LeFever v. Matthews, 336 Mich. App. 651 (2021) (Court of Appeals construing “natural parent” to include a birth mother who lacked genetic connection)
- In re Madrone, 271 Or. App. 116 (2015) (Oregon Court of Appeals’ multi‑factor contemporaneous intent test for whether same‑sex partners would have married; adopted as guidance)
- Stankevich v. Milliron (On Remand), 313 Mich. App. 233 (2015) (applied equitable‑parent analysis to a same‑sex spouse who married outside Michigan)
- Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. 563 (2017) (states cannot deny married same‑sex parents the same birth‑certificate benefits afforded opposite‑sex married parents)