In re Moiles
303 Mich. App. 59
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Moiles signed an acknowledgment of parentage asserting he was the child EM's natural father, despite potential doubt about biological paternity.
- Weeks sought to revoke the acknowledgment under the Revocation of Paternity Act (the Act) within the permissible time frames after EM's birth.
- DNA testing showed Moiles had 0% probability of being EM's biological father, prompting Weeks's petition.
- The trial court held the acknowledgment was a misrepresentation of a material fact and was executed fraudulently by both parties, revoking the acknowledgment.
- The court ordered DNA testing and relied on it as a tool to assist the determination under the Act, and ultimately declined to conduct a best-interest analysis under MCL 722.1443(4).
- Weeks's petition proceeded in a manner consistent with the Act's statutory framework, and the court affirmed revocation of the acknowledgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misrepresentation/fraud supports revocation of acknowledgment | Weeks contends misrepresentation/justice under 722.1437(2)(d) applies | Moiles argues misrepresentation’s scope is narrow and signatures cannot violate the Act | Yes; misrepresentation/fraud supported revocation |
| Whether the statute requires a best-interest determination | Moiles claims best-interest must be considered under 722.1443(4) | Weeks argues best-interest consideration does not apply to revocation of an acknowledgment | No; best-interest determination not required for revocation of acknowledgment |
| Whether the Act's procedure (two-step process) was properly followed | Moiles contends the process misapplied by ordering testing before ruling on misrepresentation | Weeks argues statutory framework supports the sequence | Court followed proper statutory sequence; testing aids—not binds—the determination |
| Whether the acknowledgment constitutes a paternity determination triggering 722.1443(4) | Moiles asserts acknowledgment is a paternity determination | Weeks asserts it is not a paternity determination per statute | Acknowledgment is not a paternity determination under 722.1443(4) for purposes of best-interest review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Daniels Estate, 301 Mich App 450 (2013) (acknowledgment allowed when not biological father; but not when knowingly false)
- Bay Co Prosecutor v Nugent, 276 Mich App 183 (2007) (applies ordinary rule of statutory interpretation in this context)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) (standard for reviewing child-custody decisions; consideration of error)
- McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (2012) (defines standards in paternity-related proceedings)
- Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547 (2012) (statutory interpretation and significance of context)
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass’n (On Rehearing), 484 Mich 1 (2009) (principles of statutory construction regarding ambiguity)
- Ford Motor Co v Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425 (2006) (risk allocation and interpretation guides in statutory analysis)
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (2013) (principles of execution and interpretation in estate/parentage)