882 N.W.2d 539
Mich.2016Background
- Plaintiff and defendant were long-term same-sex partners (relationship began 1995) who took many steps to form a marital-like family (domestic-partnership declaration, domestic-partnership agreement, commitment ceremony, ketubah); defendant carried three children conceived with an anonymous donor.
- Plaintiff acted as a parent: provided financial support, health insurance, and was named guardian/conservator in defendant’s estate planning documents; children used plaintiff’s surname.
- The couple split in 2010; after separation defendant blocked plaintiff’s access to the children.
- Michigan law then barred same-sex marriage and did not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages; second-parent adoption by unmarried partners was also prohibited prior to Obergefell.
- After Obergefell, plaintiff sued for custody and parenting time under Michigan’s common-law equitable-parent doctrine; the trial court denied summary disposition to defendant pending factual development.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals peremptorily vacated the trial-court decision, holding the equitable-parent doctrine applies only to married persons; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Justice McCormack (joined by Justice Bernstein) dissented from the denial and would have granted leave to address whether Obergefell requires application of the equitable-parent doctrine to same-sex couples barred from marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nonbiological partner in a same-sex couple (who was prohibited from marrying) has standing to seek custody under Michigan’s equitable-parent doctrine | Mabry: Obergefell and equal-protection/due-process principles require applying the equitable-parent doctrine to same-sex partners who were unconstitutionally barred from marrying | Mabry: Extending the doctrine would improperly permit any third party to obtain parental rights; doctrine should remain limited to married persons | Michigan Supreme Court: Denied leave to appeal (no opinion on merits). Court of Appeals: held equitable-parent doctrine limited to married persons; Justice McCormack (dissenting from denial) would grant review and apply Obergefell to extend doctrine to barred same-sex partners |
| Whether limiting the equitable-parent doctrine to married couples violates children’s constitutional rights recognized in Obergefell | Mabry: Children of same-sex couples suffer harms from denial of marital benefits; they should receive same protections as children of married opposite-sex couples | Mabry: (implicit) existing doctrine preserves importance of marriage and prevents unwarranted third-party claims | Dissent (McCormack): Obergefell emphasized harms to children; courts should consider extending equitable-parent protections to these children; majority denied review |
| Whether Van v. Zahorik’s limitation of equitable-parent doctrine to married couples controls post-Obergefell disputes involving couples who were barred from marrying | Mabry: Van is distinguishable because Van involved couples who chose not to marry; here parties were prohibited from marrying | Defendant: Van’s marriage requirement should remain controlling to limit doctrine’s scope | Denial of leave leaves Van’s limitation in place; dissent would revisit Van in light of Obergefell |
| Whether trial courts can craft safeguards to prevent abuses if equitable-parent doctrine is extended | Mabry: Trial courts can and do perform fact-specific inquiries to protect parental rights and best interests of the child | Defendant: Extending doctrine risks opening custody to improper third-party claims | Dissent: Other states have fashioned workable rules; Michigan trial courts capable of careful factfinding; majority did not resolve issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (same-sex couples have fundamental right to marry; children of same-sex couples entitled to marriage’s benefits)
- Van v. Zahorik, 460 Mich. 320 (Mich. 1999) (Michigan recognized equitable-parent doctrine but limited it to married persons)
- Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich. App. 601 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (elements for recognizing an equitable parent)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental rights are fundamental; broad third-party visitation statutes may violate those rights)
- Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972) (children born out of wedlock protected by equal protection principles)
- Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 (1988) (statutes disadvantaging children of unmarried parents can violate equal protection)
- New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. v. Cahill, 411 U.S. 619 (1973) (denying benefits to children based on parents’ marital status raises equal protection concerns)