Jeremy Phillip Jones v. Sharon Denise Jones
334937
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Parties married in 1998; had son DJ (born 2001). They separated around 2008 and lived in different cities for years.
- In vitro fertilization (IVF) resulted in daughter AJ, born November 18, 2013; parties disputed whether plaintiff (husband) consented or contributed genetic material.
- Plaintiff claimed he revoked consent to IVF in January 2010 and did not contribute sperm; defendant proceeded with assisted reproduction using an anonymous donor.
- Plaintiff filed for divorce in 2015 and stipulated in trial court proceedings (and the trial court accepted) that he was not AJ’s legal father; trial court also awarded custody of DJ to defendant.
- Trial court found, based on testimony and evidence, that AJ was born out of wedlock (not issue of the marriage) and applied the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA) to terminate presumed paternity; court also considered best-interest factors and approved the settlement.
- Trial court later signed a proposed judgment under MCR 2.602(B)(3) that included errors (transportation responsibility switched, misspelled name, wrong birthdate); appellate court found the signed judgment did not comport with oral ruling and remanded to correct it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RPA applies to children conceived via IVF when the husband is the presumed father | RPA governs actions to declare a presumed father is not the child’s father; husband was presumed father (married at conception) and may revoke paternity under RPA | RPA not proper vehicle for IVF/ART conception disavowals; husband cannot easily revoke paternity where ART used | RPA applies; husband was presumed father but court properly determined AJ was not issue of marriage and RPA governed revocation |
| Sufficiency of evidence that husband did not contribute genetic material / revoked consent | Husband presented testimony, revocation document, fertility-center evidence, separate residences, and prior settlement | Defendant argued husband knew or participated and disputed revocation effect; contested findings | Trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous; record supported conclusion AJ not issue of marriage |
| Best-interest standard and evidentiary burden to refuse revocation (MCL 722.1443(4)) | Best-interest factors control; no statute requires clear-and-convincing proof, preponderance applies | Defendant urged heightened burden or protection because child conceived via ART and may be harmed by revocation | Court held best-interest factors suffice as safeguard; no elevated evidentiary burden required; here factors supported revocation (no bond, long separation, revocation) |
| Whether the final written judgment comported with the court’s oral rulings under MCR 2.602(B)(3) | Plaintiff submitted proposed judgment; court signed it under rule when no precise transcript supplied | Defendant objected that written order reversed transportation responsibility and contained errors; trial court improperly required transcript | Court vacated judgment in part, directed correction to match oral ruling (father responsible for transportation) and fix AJ’s name/birthdate; trial court erred denying objections for lack of transcript |
Key Cases Cited
- Demski v. Petlick, 309 Mich. App. 404 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review and evidentiary discussion in RPA cases)
- Parks v. Parks, 304 Mich. App. 232 (Mich. Ct. App.) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Title Office, Inc. v. Van Buren County Treasurer, 469 Mich. 516 (Mich.) (enforce statute as written when unambiguous)
- Lech v. Huntmore Estates Condo Ass’n (On Remand), 315 Mich. App. 288 (Mich. Ct. App.) (plain-meaning construction of statutory words)
- Milot v. Dep’t of Transportation, 318 Mich. App. 272 (Mich. Ct. App.) (read statutes as a whole)
- Chapdelaine v. Sochocki, 247 Mich. App. 167 (Mich. Ct. App.) (general rule that stipulations preclude appeal)
- Koron v. Melendy, 207 Mich. App. 188 (Mich. Ct. App.) (limitations on enforcing settlements affecting children)
- Johns v. Johns, 178 Mich. App. 101 (Mich. Ct. App.) (equities where long-term parental role exists)
- Helton v. Beaman, 304 Mich. App. 97 (Mich. Ct. App.) (distinguishing revocation-of-paternity from custody modifications)
- Brown v. Loveman, 260 Mich. App. 576 (Mich. Ct. App.) (custody-modification burden when changing established custodial environment)
- Residential Ratepayer Consortium v. Public Service Comm’n, 198 Mich. App. 144 (Mich. Ct. App.) (default evidentiary standard is preponderance absent statutory directive)
- ISB Sales Co. v. Dave’s Cakes, 258 Mich. App. 520 (Mich. Ct. App.) (de novo review for court-rule interpretation)
- In re Contempt of Henry, 282 Mich. App. 656 (Mich. Ct. App.) (court speaks through its written orders; orders must comport with oral pronouncements)