894 N.W.2d 62
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Kerri Putnam (defendant) and Michelle Lake (plaintiff) were long-term romantic partners; Putnam gave birth via artificial insemination during the relationship.
- After the relationship ended, Putnam refused Lake visitation with the minor child; Lake sued seeking parenting time.
- Putnam moved for summary disposition arguing Lake, a nonparent/third person under the Child Custody Act, lacked standing; the trial court denied the motion and awarded Lake supervised parenting time.
- Putnam appealed; the Court of Appeals granted leave and reviewed the summary-disposition ruling de novo.
- The appellate majority held Lake was a third person who did not meet statutory third-party standing (MCL 722.26b / 722.26c) and that Michigan’s equitable-parent doctrine applies only where the child was born or conceived during a marriage.
- The court reversed the denial of summary disposition, vacated the parenting-time order, and remanded with instructions to enter summary disposition for Putnam.
Issues
| Issue | Lake's Argument | Putnam's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lake (a nonbiological, nonparent third person) has standing to seek parenting time under the Child Custody Act | Lake argued she qualifies as an equitable parent (in loco parentis) and thus has standing | Lake is a third person who does not meet statutory third-party standing; equitable-parent doctrine does not apply because the child was not born/ conceived in wedlock | Reversed — Lake lacks standing; summary disposition for Putnam warranted |
| Whether Michigan’s equitable-parent doctrine extends to unmarried couples (including same-sex couples) | Lake urged extension of the doctrine (or recognition under Obergefell) so long-term nonbiological coparents can be treated as parents | Doctrine applies only where child was born/conceived during marriage; courts should not retroactively impose marriage | Held that equitable-parent doctrine is limited to children born or conceived during marriage; it does not apply here |
| Whether Obergefell requires retroactive treatment of unmarried same-sex couples as married for custody purposes | Lake argued denial violates due process/equal protection; Obergefell should permit courts to treat such couples as married for parental-rights claims | Putnam and majority said retroactively imposing marriage is beyond the judiciary and the Van precedent controls | Rejected Lake’s constitutional argument; no evidence that parties would have married before the child’s birth, so Obergefell does not alter Van’s rule in this case |
| Whether the child’s equal-protection rights can be asserted by Lake to sustain her claim | Lake attempted to assert the child’s equal-protection interest in parental recognition | Generally a third party lacks standing to assert another person’s constitutional rights; Lake cannot assert child’s rights to gain standing | Held Lake may not assert the child’s constitutional rights to obtain standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Spiek v. Dep’t of Transp., 456 Mich 331 (review standard for summary disposition)
- Van v. Zahorik, 460 Mich 320 (1999) (equitable-parent doctrine limited to children born or conceived during marriage)
- Bowie v. Arder, 441 Mich 23 (1992) (third parties living with a child do not automatically have standing)
- In re Anjoski, 283 Mich App 41 (2009) (limits on third-party standing in custody disputes)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich App 149 (2006) (third party cannot create custody dispute absent statutory standing)
- Stankevich v. Milliron, 313 Mich App 233 (2015) (standing where same-sex couple married elsewhere)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich App 601 (1987) (formulation of equitable-parent doctrine)
- York v. Morofsky, 225 Mich App 333 (1997) (equitable parent gains rights and responsibilities)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. _ (2015) (same-sex marriage decision cited regarding constitutional context)
- Ramey v. Sutton, 362 P.3d 217 (Okla. 2015) (Oklahoma decision recognizing in loco parentis for a same-sex coparent)
- In re Madrone, 271 Or App 116 (2015) (case‑by‑case inquiry whether same-sex couple would have married but for marriage ban)