882 N.W.2d 194
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff and defendant entered into a same-sex marriage in Canada in July 2007; defendant is the child’s biological mother.
- The parties separated in March 2009; initial visitation schedule failed to be agreed upon.
- Plaintiff filed a verified complaint seeking dissolution of the marriage, establishment of parental status, custody, parenting time, and child support.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), contending plaintiff lacked standing to petition for custody.
- The trial court granted summary disposition; this Court previously held plaintiff had no standing under the CCA’s definition of parent.
- Following Obergefell v. Hodges, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded and the Court now considers whether the equitable parent doctrine can apply to a same-sex marriage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Obergefell requires recognizing the same-sex marriage for standing. | Stankevich argues Obergefell requires recognizing same-sex marriages, giving standing. | Milliron contends standing depends on traditional definitions of parent under state law. | Obergefell requires recognizing same-sex marriages; standing exists under equitable parent doctrine. |
| Whether equitable parent doctrine applies to same-sex couples post-Obergefell. | Equitable parent should apply to ensure parental rights and duties. | Doctrine should remain limited to traditional marriage contexts. | Equitable parent doctrine applies; exclusion of same-sex couples is not permissible. |
| Whether the Canadian marriage validity governs standing on remand. | If Canadian marriage is valid, plaintiff may be an equitable parent. | Validity of foreign marriage must be determined; no automatic standing. | Remand to determine validity of the Canadian marriage under the place-of-celebration DRL. |
| What remedy on remand should be provided for parental status and custody claims. | Evidence required to prove equitable parent status and related rights. | Court should not pre-determine standing; merits hearing needed. | Remand for evidentiary hearing to determine equitable parent status and accompanying relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkinson v Atkinson, 160 Mich App 601 (Mich App 1987) (equitable parent doctrine adopted for nonbiological parent situations)
- Van v Zahorik, 460 Mich 320 (1999) (equitable parent doctrine limited to marriage context prior to Obergefell)
- York v Morofsky, 225 Mich App 333 (1997) (application of equitable parent doctrine in court proceedings)
- Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27 (1996) (recognition of nonbiological parents in custody context)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing summary disposition and standing questions)
- Heltzel v Heltzel, 248 Mich App 1 (2001) (standing and parental rights principles in custody disputes)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (required recognition of same-sex marriages; fundamental right to marry)