GIRARD v WAGENMAKER
Docket No. 85662
Supreme Court of Michigan
Argued November 8, 1990. Decided May 7, 1991.
437 Mich 231
In an opinion by Justice BRICKLEY, joined by Justices BOYLE and GRIFFIN, and an opinion by Justice RILEY, the Supreme Court held:
Neither the Paternity Act nor the Child Custody Act supports the standing of a putative father to bring an action to determine the paternity of a child born while the mother was married to another man.
- The Paternity Act provides that a father or putative
father of a child born out of wedlock may seek an order of filiation in the circuit court. The act definеs a child born out of wedlock as a child begotten and born to a woman who was not married from the conception to the date of birth of the child, or a child which the court has determined to be a child born during a marriage, but not the issue of that marriage. While the words of a statute must be given their ordinary construction according to their common and approved usage, a court may refer to the legislative intent when enacted. The intent can be ascertained from an examination of the language of the act, the subject matter under consideration, the scope and purpose of the act, and other preceding statutes. A literal construction of the language of the act, as well as its legislative history and analyses and subsequent case law, supports the conclusion that the plaintiff had no standing to bring a claim under the act. The mother clearly was married to her husband when the child was born, and at the time of the filing of the complaint there had been no prior determination by the circuit court that the child was not the issue of that marriage. - Because the plaintiff does not have standing under the Paternity Act, he is not a parent for purposes of the Child Custody Act, barring his child custody claim.
Justice RILEY concurred in the analyses of the Paternity Act and the Child Custody Act, but indicated that Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367 (1985), was incorrectly decided, and thus did not join in the analysis of that case.
Reversed.
Chief Justice CAVANAGH, joined by Justice LEVIN, dissenting, stated that the Paternity Act should be interpreted to afford the plaintiff the standing he seeks. The literal language of the statute includes within the definition of a child born out of wedlock a child born to a married woman, but not fathered by thе husband. Nothing in the Paternity Act compels the conclusion that separate courts in separate proceedings must separately determine the paternity or nonpaternity of the husband and the putative father. The Paternity Act‘s central function is to provide a judicial forum to litigate and determine paternity, along with its consequent legal rights and obligations. Since 1941, the law has recognized that putative fathers had independent standing to seek determinations of their paternity in the circuit court. There is no basis in reason, logic, or any applicable statute to hold that a putative father by artificial insemination should have any greater right or preferred standing to litigate his paternity than any other putative father. Nor is there any reason why the act‘s concededly predominant pur-
Denying putative fathers a legal forum in which to press their claims will not prevent such claims from being made. There is no question that in a dispute concerning a biological father‘s right to develop or maintain any actual relationship with his child—once it is established that he is the biological father—the ultimate govеrning standard would be the best interests of the child, but this governing factor can best be considered individually in the very hearing the putative father seeks following the threshold determination of paternity. Upholding a putative father‘s standing to bring his paternity claim does not in any way endorse or prejudge his claim to provide support to the child, or his claim to custody or visitation; but to deny him standing to bring his claim is inherently unjust. Nor does the fact that he may not ultimately succeed on the merits justify denying him his day in court.
Finally, a father‘s interest in establishing and maintaining a relationship with his child unquestionably falls within the scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of
Justice MALLETT took no part in the decision of this case.
173 Mich App 735; 434 NW2d 227 (1988) reversed.
PARENT AND CHILD — PATERNITY ACT — CHILD CUSTODY ACT — PUTATIVE FATHERS — STANDING.
Neither the Paternity Act nor the Child Custody Act supports the standing of a putative father to bring an action to determine paternity of a child born while the mother was married to another man (
Vander Ploeg, Ruck, Luyendyk & Wells (by Robert S. Engel) for the plaintiff.
Paul M. Ladas for the defendant.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Gay Secor Hardy, Solicitor General, and George H. Weller, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General.
Katherine L. Barnhart for the Family Law Council of the State Bar of Michigan.
OPINION OF THE COURT
BRICKLEY, J. The Court granted leave in this case to resolve two issues.1 The first issue is whether the plaintiff, a putative father, has standing to bring an action under the Paternity Act as it existed in 1985,
On the basis of our interpretation of the Paternity Act, we hold that the Legislature did not express an intention to grant a putative father standing to establish the paternity of a child born while the mother was legally married to another man without a prior determination that the mother‘s husband is not the father. We also conclude that a putative father does not have standing to make a similar claim under the Child Custody Act.
I. FACTS
This dispute began on May 10, 1985, when Larry Girard filed a complaint against Judy Wagenmaker, claiming that he was the father of a child conceived and born while Wagenmaker was married to her husband, Harvey Wagenmaker. The complaint by Girard acknowledged that Harvey Wagenmaker was the husband of Judy, but alleged that the child was not a child of the marriage. The complaint requested a determination of the child‘s paternity, an order of filiation if Girard was found to be the biological father of the child, visitation, and a determination of support.
Subsequently, on June 19, 1985, Harvey Wagenmaker filed a petition for intervention, stating that the child was conceived and born during his marriage with Wagenmaker, and that he continuously accepted and supported the child as his own. On the same day, Judy Wagenmaker filed a motion for summary disposition, alleging, as in this Court, that Girard did not establish that the child was “born out of wedlock,”
In a written opinion, R. Max Daniels, presiding judge of the Muskegon Circuit Court, ruled that Girard did not have standing to bring a paternity action in the circuit court. Judge Daniels stated that most paternity claims generally arise when a divorce occurs, and, because this aspect was missing from the present case, Girard did not have standing under the Paternity Act. Judge Daniels declared that the words “which the court has determined” under the definition of child born out of wedlock,
On appeal, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court‘s decision. 173 Mich App 735; 434 NW2d 227 (1988). In holding that a man claiming himself to be the biological father of a child had standing even if the mother is married to another man at the time of conception and birth, the Court of Appeals stated that a putative father does not “need a judicial determination that the child is a child born out of wedlock at the time that [the putative father] filed the complaint.” Id. at 741.
This Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a putative father can obtain standing under either the Paternity Act or the Child Custody Act to disputе the paternity of a child born while the natural mother is married to another man. 435 Mich 858 (1990).
II. THE PATERNITY ACT
A
Although this Court has previously reviewed the Paternity Act, this case presents a novel question. At issue is the following statutory language:
The father or putative father of a child born out of wedlock may file a complaint in the circuit court in the county in which the child or mother resides or is found, praying for the entry of the order of filiation as provided for in section 7. [
MCL 722.714(6) ;MSA 25.494(6) . Emphasis added.]“Child born out of wedlock” means a child begotten and born to a woman who was not married from the conception to the date of birth of the child, or a child which the court has determined to be a child born during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage. [
MCL 722.711(a) ;MSA 25.491(a) . Emphasis added.]
The Court is bound by a number of rules of statutory construction when it interprets statutes. Although the proper construction of any statute is for the courts, Lakehead Pipe Line Co v Dehn, 340 Mich 25, 35; 64 NW2d 903 (1954); Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948), this Court must still give the statute a valid and reasonable construction that will reconcile any inconsistencies and give effect to all its parts. Aikins v Dep‘t of Conservation, 387 Mich 495, 499; 198 NW2d 304 (1972); see also In re Petition of State Hwy Comm, 383 Mich 709, 714-715; 178 NW2d 923 (1970) (citing Evans Products Co v State Bd of Escheats, 307 Mich 506; 12 NW2d 422 [1943]). While the words of a statute must be given their ordinary construction according to their common and approved usage,
In 1820, the Legislature enacted the first act similar to the Paternity Act. May 8, 1820 (1 Laws of the Territory of Michigan 640 [1871]). This act, entitled “AN ACT for the support and maintenance of Illegitimate Children,” 1 Laws of the Territory of Michigan 643 (1871), underwent subsequent changes in 1827 and 1838. See 2 Laws of the Territory of Michigan 581 (1874); 1838 RS, part 1, tit IX, ch 6. In 1846 the act was reentitled the Bastardy Act and further amendments followed over the years. 1846 RS, tit IX, ch 42; 1857 CL, tit XV, ch 43; 1871 CL 1973; 1882 How Anno Stat 2004; 1897 CL 5901; 1915 CL 7753; 1929 CL 12910.
In 1941, the Bastardy Act of 1846 was amended to allow the father of an illegitimate child to bring a claim in the circuit court to prevent the issuance of a warrant of prosecution against the alleged father:
The father of an illegitimate child may file a bill of complaint in the circuit court . . . . [T]he pendency of a bill of complaint filed therefor shall be a bar to the issuance of a warrant or prosecution thereof upon complaint as authorized by this chapter, in case such complaint is made after the filing of such bill of complaint. [1941 PA 316, ch 42, § 12. Emphasis added.]
In 1956, the Paternity Act underwent substantial revisions. 1956 PA 205,
In 1980, the Legislature again amended the Paternity Act, expanding the definition of a child born out of wedlock to include “a child which the court has determined to be a child born during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage.” 1980 PA 54,
This amendment came about for two reasons. First, this Court decided Serafin v Serafin, 401 Mich 629; 258 NW2d 461 (1977), which abrogated Lord Mansfield‘s Rule and stated that the presumption of legitimacy can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Legislature believed that Serafin would leave natural mothers without any avenue to force a biological father to undertake parental responsibilities and leave “a gap in the law by which some children are deprived of access to support from their fathers . . . .” House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979.
Second, in July of 1979, the Court of Appeals decided Smith v Robbins, 91 Mich App 284, 288-289; 283 NW2d 725 (1979) (BASHARA, J.), in which it was stated:
If our paternity statute is interpreted as creating a distinction between support provided for an illegitimate child of an unwed mother and the illegitimate child of a married mother, a clearly irrational classification exists and the statute will be rendered unconstitutional.
. . . .
The Court of Appeals avoided the equal protection problem by defining “unmarried” to include “not lawfully married to the father of the child . . . .” Id. at 291. The Legislature obviously was concerned about such an unconstitutional distinction. Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 374; 362 NW2d 211 (1985).
The last amendment of the Paternity Act occurred in 1986, after the present suit was initiated. The 1986 amendment added the term “or conceived” to the definition of a child born out of wedlock. 1986 PA 107,
With this background in mind, we turn to the issues presented in this case.
B
The Paternity Act defined a child born out of wedlock as “a child begotten and born to a woman who was not married from the conception to the
To meet the requirements of the second clause under the statutory definition, there must exist a child born out of wedlock—a child which the court has determined to be a child born during, but not the issue of, the natural mother‘s marriage. Using the common and approved usage of the terms in the statute, Aikins, supra, we find that a literal construction of this clause, coupled with the filing requirement clause, requires a prior court determination that a child is born out of wedlock.
In the second clause of the born out of wedlock definition, the Legislature used the term “which the court has determined” to define one of the necessary requirements to find that a child is born out of wedlock. “[H]as determined” is the present perfect tense of the verb “determine.” The present perfect tense generally “indicates action that was started in the past and has recently been completed or is continuing up to the present time,” Sabin, ed., The Gregg Reference Manual (New York: McGraw-Hill, 6th ed, 1985), ch 10, p 192, or shows “that a current action is logically subsequent to a previous recent action.” Ray & Ramsfield, Legal Writing: Getting It Right and Getting It Written (St Paul: West Publishing Co, 1987), p 229. For a putative father to be able to file a proper complaint in a circuit court,
Not only is this outcome required by the plain language of the Paternity Act, but it is the only reasonable construction of the Paternity Act which will give effect to all its parts as a whole. Adopting Girard‘s view of the meaning of the statute would have us read “has determined” to mean “may determine.” Or, more precisely, had the Legislature intended the standing provision to operate as the plaintiff suggests, it would have omitted from the definition of “out of wedlock” the words “a child which the court has determined to be.”
Therefore, even if we were willing to overlook such an alteration of the plain meaning of the words of this section, we would then have to explain why the Legislature would use those words before the second prong of the out of wedlock definition, but not the first. Would it mean that where the allegation is that the child was “begotten and born to [an unwed] woman” no determination has to be made to that effect in the course of the paternity proceedings because the clause is not preceded by the words “which the court has determined“? To accept the plaintiff‘s reading, we either have to answer that question in the affirmative or declare the words “has determined” preced-
Finally, because we are dealing with standing, the question is what the plaintiff must allege at the time of filing. If the plaintiff sought access to the court under the first clause of the out-of-wedlock definition, he would only need to allege that the mother was not married at the time of birth or conception. He would not have to allege that a circuit court “has determined” such facts. But when the plaintiff sought access under the second clause, he must, by the very wording of that clause, allege that a “court has determined” that the child was not the issue of the marriage. Again, to suggest otherwise would be to declare those words a nullity. The Court must give meaning to all the words in the statute, Aikins, supra, because “it will not be presumed that the legislature intended to do a useless thing . . . .” Klopfenstein v Rohlfing, 356 Mich 197, 202; 96 NW2d 782 (1959). Giving proper weight to each and every clause, we must reach the conclusion that a prior determination of paternity is required under the second clause in the definition of a child bоrn out of wedlock.
This literal interpretation of the 1980 amendment, “which the court has determined to be a child born during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage,” is buttressed by the legislative analysis when the amendment was adopted. While recent developments in the Paternity Act certainly indicate an intent to allow the biological father access to a circuit court, this trend is not the principal focus of the Legislature‘s 1980 amendments. The legislative history and analyses indicate the Legislature‘s concern that the natural mother would not be protected in the case of divorce and support proceedings. The Legislature
One analysis of the Paternity Act stated:
In divorce and support cases, the court now may admit the husband‘s testimony disputing paternity, and in the light of clear and convincing evidence, may release the husband from parental and child support responsibilities. The mother of the child at this point has no avenue in the courts to force the biological father of the child to assume parental responsibilities, because the Paternity Act by which such determinations are made applies only to a child whose mother was unmarried from the child‘s conception to its birth[,] . . . a situation which could be corrected by amending the Paternity Act to include such children. [House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979. Emphasis added.]
In fact, one of the arguments for the amendment to include children born during a marriage, but not the issue of a marriage, stated:
If a man who was mаrried to a woman at the time of her child‘s birth convinces the court that he is not the father of the child, the law now provides no procedure to legally identify the father and require him to provide support for the child. Thus, the court may decide who is not the father of a child, but may not then entertain the question of who is. The bill would correct this. [Id. Emphasis added.]
Finally, the House Legislative Analysis of HB 4389 also states:
The bill would amend the Paternity Act to include in the definition of a “child born out of
wedlock” a child whose mother was married at the time of the birth but whose father, in the determination of the circuit court, was not the mother‘s husband. [Emphasis added.]
These legislative analyses of the 1980 amendments are clearly concerned with what actions a mother can take, not the rights of a father or putative father to claim paternity. The analyses also indicate that the Legislature, in enacting the 1980 amendments, was contemplating situations where a court in a prior divorce or support proceeding determined that the legal husband of the mother was not the biological father of the child. This concern supports our conclusion that a prior determination of paternity must have occurred before the putative father, or the mother, can file a complaint to determine who is the biological father and determine the putative father‘s support obligations.
We also think the literal reading of the “has determined” language to require a prior determination that the child is not the issue of a marriage comports with the traditional preference for respecting the presumed legitimacy of a child born during a marriage. Serafin, supra at 636. A сhild born to a mother who is unmarried does not enjoy such a presumption, and, therefore, it makes sense that the Legislature would require a prior determination in the second prong of the born out of wedlock definition, but not the first.
While one could argue that the Legislature was also concerned with the ability of the circuit court where the paternity action was pending to decide who was the father of the alleged child born out of wedlock, House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979, that argument is not persuasive. The language regarding the circuit court actually
Even though this Court has previously interpreted the Paternity Act, those interpretations do not require a different result. Most of the prior cases review the purpose of the Paternity Act and are not dispositive. See Artibee, supra; Whybra v Gustafson, 365 Mich 396, 400; 112 NW2d 503 (1961). Bowerman, supra, is also not dispositive.
In Syrkowski, supra, we dealt with a situation where a claim under the Paternity Act was brought by a third party. In a per curiam decision, we stated:
The circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an action to identify thе father of a child born out of wedlock. Any other conclusion requires an impossibly restrictive and unnecessary interpretation of the statutory language.
The plaintiff seeks only a paternity act determination that he is the biological father of Teresa Syrkowski. The act was created as a procedural vehicle for determining the paternity of children “born out of wedlock,” and enforcing the resulting support obligation. The plaintiff is requesting the Court to determine the status of the child and his biological paternity. The act allows fathers to seek
and receive such determinations. We hold that the circuit court does have subject-matter jurisdiction. [Id. at 375.]
Our holding here does not necessarily conflict with our narrow holding in Syrkowski that a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action brought by a putative father in a surrogate parenting context. Syrkowski dealt with the subject-matter jurisdiction of a circuit court under § 4 of the Paternity Act. See former
Finally, because a certificate of nonconsent was filed in Syrkowski, the out-of-wedlock issue, while not articulated in our opinion in that case, may well have been determined on the peculiar circumstances of the interaction of the Paternity Act and
C
The dissent dismisses our analysis as unsupported by whatever “scant legislative history exists,” post, p 257, and then, without support from the text or the legislative background of the Paternity Act, attempts to justify the standing of the putative father of a presumptively legitimate child of another man married to the child‘s mother.
The only recognition of independent standing for the putative father, and then only when the child is born to a woman not married from the conception to the date of birth, was the 1941 enactment whereby a putative father was given the standing and opportunity, not to provide the putative father a “legal forum or procedure to claim his alleged paternal status,” post, p 262, but to pray for the entry of a “decree providing for the support of such child” unless a proceeding for an order to that effect was already commenced. 1941 PA 316, § 12. The acknowledged purpose of this provision, seen by the dissent as designed to satisfy the paternal instincts of the father, was to give the putative father an opportunity to forestall a warrant upon the action of the mother of the illegitimate child. This legislative intent becomes very clear when it is recognized that the 1941 enactments also added a specific statement to that effect.
The dissent also attacks our interpretation of the 1980 amendment for denying the putative father standing—not the standing he acquired by virtue of the 1941 amendment, but to contest his paternity over a child born within a marriage to another man—“precisely when he needs [it] the most” (post, p 262) (emphasis supplied); and for visiting “hardship and injustice” (id.) on the plaintiff. Only after a construction of the 1980 out-of-
I frankly do not understand why the Paternity Act‘s concededly predominant purpose of facilitating support for children born out of wedlock should be thought to militate affirmatively against the standing of a putative father in a case like the one before us. The unfortunate fact that, in our society, the act‘s primary utility lies in compelling unwilling and recalcitrant fathers to meet their support obligations is no reason to deny standing to those fathers who desire to acknowledge their paternal responsibilities. [Post, p 269. Emphasis in original.]
We do not denigrate the dissent‘s genuine and thoughtful concerns over the moral dilemma between the paternal needs of the biological father and those of the presumptively legitimate child. We only find that the Legislature has made its choice and the answer to the dissent‘s concerns will have to come from that body.
In the meantime, the dissent has posed our dilemma as the interpreters of legislative intent better and more succinctly than we have in the entirety of this opinion by stating: “It is surely a bit late to talk of preserving the ‘sanctity’ of the marital family by the time a situation like the one alleged in this case has arisen.” Post, p 271. We could not agree more. The Legislature has for 182 years now chosen to protect this “sanctity,” and that choice prompts its preference to avoid a challenge to a presumed legitimate birth until a prior determination rebuts legitimacy and threatеns the child‘s support by exposing the fact that the presumed father is not the biological father. As described in our legislative analysis above, this situation is precisely what concerned the Legislature in
their 1980 amendment and precisely what they said in the language that was adopted.III. THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT
The remaining question, whether a putative father has standing under the Child Custody Act,
We note that a proper action to determine paternity should be brought under and governed by the provisions of the Paternity Act. See Pizana v Jones, 127 Mich App 123, 127; 339 NW2d 1 (1983). Once the trial court determined that Girard, a putative father of a child born to a woman married to another man, did not have standing to contest paternity under the Paternity Act, Girard clearly could not obtain a determination that he was the natural or biological father of the child under the Child Custody Act. Because Girard could not obtain a determination that he was a parent of Wagenmaker s child, Girard must be considered a nonparent under the Child Custody Act and his child custody claim is barred. Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565; 364 NW2d 665 (1984).7
Neither the statutory or the legislative analyses of the Paternity Act nor the analyses of the Child Custody Act support the position of Girard. Neither the Paternity Act nor the Child Custody Act supports the standing of a putative father to bring an action to determine the paternity of a child born while the mother was married to another man. Therefore, we conclude that Girard has no standing to bring an action to determine the paternity of Judy and Harvey Wagenmaker s child. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the summary dismissals granted by the Muskegon Circuit Court.
BOYLE and GRIFFIN, JJ., concurred with BRICKLEY, J.
RILEY, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority opinion with respect to the Paternity Act analysis, and also with respect to the Child Custody Act analysis. However, I write separately to indicate that I did not participate in Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367; 362 NW2d 211 (1985), and, having had the opportunity to review that case, I am persuaded that it was incorrectly decided. Thus, I do not join in the majority s Syrkowski analysis in § II(B).
I. INTRODUCTION
The majority s decision in this case denies the plaintiff any standing even to cross the threshold of the courthouse door in his claim to a hearing on whether he is the natural father of the child at issue.1 The majority rejects the literal meaning of the Paternity Act, imposes an untenable construction on that law fraught with anomalies and injustice, implicitly overrules both the reasoning and the result of this Court s decision in Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367; 362 NW2d 211 (1985), and throws into grave doubt the constitutional validity of the Paternity Act.
II. THE PATERNITY ACT
A. THE STATUTORY BACKGROUND
The majority begins, as do I, by quoting the language of the two relevant provisions of the Paternity Act:2
The father or putative father of a child born out of wedlock may file a complaint in the circuit court in the county in which the child or mother resides or is found, praying for the entry of the
order of filiation as provided for in [ MCL 722.717 ;MSA 25.497 ]. The mother of the child shall be made a party defendant and notified of the hearing on the complaint by summons which shall be in such form as the court shall determine and shall be served in the same manner as is provided by court rules for the service of process in civil actions. The court, following the hearing, may enter an order of filiation which shall have the same effect, be subject to the same provisions, and enforced in the same mаnner as an order of filiation would be if entered on complaint of the mother. [MCL 722.714(6) ;MSA 25.494(6) .]“Child born out of wedlock” means a child begotten and born to a woman who was not married from the conception to the date of birth of the child, or a child which the court has determined to be a child born or conceived during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage. [
MCL 722.711(a) ;MSA 25.491(a) .]
In this case, Girard, the putative father, alleges that the child was begotten and born to Judy Wagenmaker during the latter s marriage to Harvey Wagenmaker, but is not the issue of that marriage, being rather the issue of himself and Judy Wagenmaker. In my view, a literal reading of the statutory language resolves this case—which at this stage involves nothing more than the threshold issue of standing—in Girard s favor, without further ado. The majority, however, disagrees.
In order to understand the present state of the law regarding paternity claims it is necessary to review several recent historical developments. I will not attempt to retrace Justice BRICKLEY S careful and scholarly discussion of the historical lineage of Michigan s paternity laws dating back to 1809. It suffices, for present purposes, to note
Unfortunately, Serafin created an anomaly in Michigan law. While a husband could now effectively disown a child of his wife and thereby escape his support obligation by rebutting the presumption of legitimacy, Michigan law still did not recognize a child in that situation as having been “born out of wedlock,” and therefore did not permit a paternity claim against the actual father. Thus, while an unmarried woman had legal recourse for support of a child against the natural father, a married woman whose child was not fathered by her husband could be denied recourse against either the husband or the natural father.
The Court of Appeals responded to this “gap in the law,”4 and the grave constitutional problems it raised, in Smith v Robbins, 91 Mich App 284; 283 NW2d 725 (1979). In order to avoid finding the Paternity Act s definition of children born “out of wedlock” unconstitutional,5 Smith construed that
The Legislature also responded to the anomaly created by Serafin. Essentially following Smith,6 it amended the statutory definition of children born “out of wedlock” to include “a child which the court has determined to be a child born during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage.” 1980 PA 54. The outcome of this case revolves in large part around the true meaning of this 1980 amendment.
B. THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
The primary argument of the majority is that because the 1980 amendment of
The majority relies heavily on the fact that the words “has determined” are in the present perfect tense, thereby suggesting that at the time the court considers the paternity claim, it will have already been determined that the child is not the issue of the marriage in question. Nothing about the use of the present perfect tense, however, requires the conclusion that the language refers to some separate and prior court proceeding. Rather, it would simply seem to indicate that before the ultimate question of paternity is resolved on the merits, it is necessary that “the court“—the very court hearing the paternity claim—will have determined that the child is not the issue of the marriage in question. Obviously, the latter finding is a prerequisite of the former, and must temporally precede it; that is in the very nature of the definition. But nothing compels the conclusion that separate courts in separate proceedings must separately determine the paternity (or nonpaternity) of the husband and the putative father.7
The majority suggests that the statute might more easily bear the meaning urged here if it referred to “a child which the court determines [present tense] to be a child born during a marriage but not the issue of that marriage,” or if the reference to a “court determination” were absent altogether. Ante, pp 243-246. This may well be, but it is no less true that far more comprehensible and clearcut language could have been chosen to express the meaning the majority forces upon the statute. The majority cites no evidence that the Legislature intended to place such extraordinary
It is true that the need to protect mothers and children caught in the Serafin-created “gap,” rather than the issue of the putative father s standing to bring a paternity claim, was the “principal focus” of the 1980 amendment. Ante, pp 245-246, quoting House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979. But this is not surprising or dispositive, or even particularly relevant. The standing of putative fathers was not directly at issue with regard to the 1980 amendment because the putative father s standing to bring a paternity claim had long since been established under the Paternity Act. As the majority itself notes, it was in 1941—thirty-nine years before the 1980 amendment—that the ancestor of the present Paternity Act was amended to grant standing to putative fathers to claim paternity of their children. See ante, p 239; 1941 PA 316, ch 42, § 12. This provision has survived as modified into the present-day Paternity Act as
Indeed, what scant direct evidence we have of
The bill would amend the Paternity Act to include in the definition of a “child born out of wedlock” a child whose mother was married at the time of the birth but whose father, in the determination of the circuit court, was not the mother s husband. [House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979. Emphasis added.]
Significantly, the legislative analysis renders the emphasized words as a prepositional phrase within a forward-looking conditional sentence describing what the act “would” do, undermining any notion that the Legislature vested peculiar importance in the present-perfect-tense phrasing of the actual statutory language. The language refers to the question whether the mother s husband is the father as something to be determined by “the circuit court,” presumably the very same circuit court hearing the paternity claim itself. If the legislative analysis had envisioned the interpretation asserted by the majority, any number of more sensible and understandable ways could have been found to say so, such as by referring to “a child . . . whose father, as previously determined by any court, was not the mother s husband.”
As the very title of the law indicates, and as this Court has held, the Paternity Act s central function is to provide a judicial forum to litigate and determine paternity, along with its consequent legal rights and obligations.9 To be sure, in most
Yet the majority contends that the Paternity Act, having vested the circuit courts with jurisdiction to hear paternity claims, whether brought by the mother, the father, or the DSS, and having defined a child born to a married woman but not the issue of the marriage as a “child born out of wedlock,” paradoxically denies to the very circuit court otherwise authorized to hear the paternity claim any authority to determine whether the child is in fact the issue of the marriage. Instead, according to the majority, the law mocks the putative father in Girard s position with a Catch-22 situation. He is turned away at the courthouse door and told that he has no standing to litigate his paternity claim unless that very issue has already been litigated in some prior proceeding. Yet the question whether his putative child is or is not “the issue of [the mother s] marriage” is, in part, precisely what he seeks to determine by filing his paternity claim in the first place.11 Thus,
The hardship and injustice which the majority s construction works on the litigant in Girard s position is self-evident. He is denied any legal forum or procedure to claim his alleged paternal status, even though that status is cognizable under the substantive law. Furthermore, the majority concedes, as it must, that its interpretation would necessarily apply not only to paternity claims brought by putative fathers such as Girard, but also to those brought by mothers or the DSS. See ante, p 246. As the Court of Appeals noted, “[t]he allegations in [Girard s] complaint are the same as those which would be sufficient to support a complaint brought by the defendant mother.” 173 Mich App 735, 740; 434 NW2d 227 (1988). It has never until this day, to my knowledge, been seriously suggested by any court in this state that a mother filing a paternity claim in this kind of
The majority, which completely ignores this problem, perhaps assumes that its interpretation will not, in practice, affect many mothers bringing paternity claims. It is perhaps true that in the most common or typical case, a mother bringing such a claim will have gone through a prior divorce or support proceeding at which her former husband will have succeeded in disproving his presumed paternity. It is easy to hypothesize cases, however, in which it would be unlikely or impossible for the prior court determination to have taken place. Suppose the husband dies before any divorce proceeding? Is the mother then forever barred from proceeding against the natural father? Suppose the husband does not realize or accept the possibility of his nonpaternity, and fails or chooses not to litigate the issue during divorce proceedings? Where the husband or former husband dies or chooses not to renоunce paternity of the child, are both the mother and the natural father forever barred from obtaining legal recognition of the natural father s status, even if the mother and natural father themselves subsequently marry and seek custody of their child?13 The majority s rationale sweeps far more broadly than it cares to admit.
C. CONTROLLING PRECEDENT
The majority gives short shrift to perhaps the most serious obstacle to its interpretation of the 1980 amendment. That interpretation is squarely foreclosed by this Court s decision six years ago in Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367; 362 NW2d 211 (1985). The Court s decision today necessarily overrules both the result and the reasoning of Syrkowski. As the majority notes, the facts of Syrkowski were unusual and certainly distinguishable from this or most other paternity cases. Syrkowski s reasoning and result, however, did not rest on the distinctions between that case and this one. Quite the contrary, Syrkowski reached the result it did on the basis of a straightforward interpretation of the plain language of the Paternity Act which, applied to this case, dictates ruling in Girard s favor.
A number of propositions are established with abundant clarity by Syrkowski s reasoning and holding. First, Syrkowski necessarily rejected the majority s interpretation of the 1980 amendment. It is clear that there was no separate or prior court determination in Syrkowski that the child was not the issue of the Appleyards marriage. We specifically noted that Syrkowski “is prepared to prove” that the child “is a child born out of wedlock as defined by the Paternity Act. That will bring the child within the provisions of the act.” Id. at 374 (emphasis added). Language does not get any clearer than this. The conclusion is inescapable that this Court in Syrkowski read the statute according to its literal meaning, to permit the determination whether the child was the “issue of th[e] marriage” to be made during the very proceeding brought under the Paternity Act by the putative father.
The majority s attempts to distinguish Syrkowski are unpersuasive. The majority asserts that Syrkowski dealt with the circuit court s subject-matter jurisdiction under the Paternity Act, rather than with the question of standing. This is a distinction without a difference. To hold that the circuit court has no statutory jurisdiction to enter-
Syrkowski s resolution of the “subject-matter jurisdiction” issue was clearly premised on its holding that the putative father in that situation has the statutory right to bring a paternity claim. After noting the statutory provision “authoriz[ing] . . . the father . . . to file a complaint alleging paternity,” this Court noted that “[t]he same section confers jurisdiction upon the circuit court.” 420 Mich 374. Then, evidently referring to both parts of this section, wе stated: ”That language is as clear as statutory language can be. There is no need to interpret or look beyond the words of the statute to the intent of the Legislature.” Id. at 375 (emphasis added). We concluded our analysis in two short sentences, the first of which clearly addressed the issue of standing: “The act allows fathers to seek and receive [paternity] determinations. We hold that the circuit court does have subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis added).
The majority suggests that Syrkowski did not address the interpretation of the “has determined” clause of the 1980 amendment. Even if the partic-
Finally, the majority suggests that our decision in Syrkowski somehow rested on the fact that Roger Appleyard filed a certificate of nonconsent under
Indeed, Syrkowski rejected precisely the same legislative purpose argument that the majority now relies upon. As noted in part II(B), the majority places special emphasis on the Paternity Act s predominant purpose of helping mothers obtain support from reluctant natural fathers and on the conceded goal of the 1980 amendment of serving this purpose by closing the Serafin-created “gap.” Syrkowski and this case each involve situations concededly remote from this general and predominant statutory purpose. Yet Syrkowski rejected the notion that this general legislative intent somehow requires an incongruously cramped interpretation of the statutory language. “We can accept the[] assumption that the Legislature was primarily motivated by a desire to provide adequate support for children born out of wedlock. However, the support obligation cannot be enforced without a preliminary determination of paternity.” Id. at 374. As we concluded: “The act allows fathers to seek and receive such determinations.” Id. at 375. “Any other conclusion,” we held, “requires an impossibly restrictive and unnecessary interpretation of the statutory language.” Id. (emphasis added).
Judge Hood stated the matter very well, in my view, in his opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in In re Paternity of Flynn, 130 Mich App 740, 765-766; 344 NW2d 352 (1983):15
[A]lthough I agree with the majority opinion s
finding that the primary purpose of the Paternity Act is to provide support for illegitimate children, . . . the act certainly cannot be construed to preclude Alan Castle s petition merely because David Flynn does currently provide support to Jessica Flynn and is willing to continue to do so. The act is concerned with determining the biological father s duty to support. If Alan Castle declares himself to be that biological father, seeks a court determination of that fact, and is willing to accept support obligations thereto, his petition under the Paternity Act is appropriate.
I frankly do not understand why the Paternity Act s concededly predominant purpose of facilitating support for children born out of wedlock should be thought to militate affirmatively against the standing of a putative father in a case like the one before us. The unfortunate fact that, in our society, the act s primary utility lies in compelling unwilling and recalcitrant fathers to meet their support obligations is no reason to deny standing to those fathers who desire to acknowledge their paternal responsibilities. See part II(D).
D. POLICY CONCERNS
This brings me to the policy concerns implicated by this case. The majority does not address most of these concerns to any significant degree, although they are the concerns upon which the Wagenmakers, and the Attorney General as amicus curiae, primarily rely.16 The Wagenmakers contend
First, and perhaps most important given the precept of judicial restraint, a substantive policy question like this should be left to the Legislature. As I have demonstrated above, the only reasonable reading of the language of the Paternity Act, as previously interpreted by this Court, compels the conclusion that the Legislature has authorized a paternity action like that brought by Girard in this case. If, on the other hand, the statutory language does not permit this Court to avoid the moral and policy questions, I would conclude that the balance of interests weighs in favor of permitting Girard s claim. It is more than a little hypocritical to contend, as do the Wagenmakers, that denying standing to Girard is consistent with “the law s repugnance to adulterers.” The biological
There is still a more basic pragmatic issue. Denying putative fathers like Girard a legal forum in which to press their claims will not prevent such claims from being made, quite possibly at times and in a manner far less conducive to the psychological health and security of the child involved. The law, after all, cannot sweep reality under the rug. Instead of leaving such paternity disputes unresolved, to fester and rankle down through the years, would it not be more desirable to give the parties their day in court and settle the issue once and for all? If the concern is the possibility of malicious or unfounded lawsuits, appropriate sanctions already exist. Furthermore, the Wagenmakers concern that the mechanics of the paternity inquiry would intrude unacceptably into their intimate marital privacy is unfounded given the ease and reliability of modern scientific paternity testing on the basis of blood samples. See Mark D. Kolins, M.D., The role of paternity testing in cases of disputed parentage, 63 Mich BJ 1169 (1984).
The Wagenmakers seek to distinguish prior cases which have upheld a putative father s standing to claim paternity of the child of a married woman by noting that in all such cases, unlike this one, the marriage involved had ended or divorce proceedings had begun. See, e.g., Perry v Stewart, 177 Mich App 460; 442 NW2d 677 (1989); Smith, supra. I would certainly agree that the continuing existence of an intact marriage would likely be a crucial factor weighing in favor of the mother with regard to any support, custody, or visitation dis-
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that upholding Girard s standing to bring his paternity claim would not in any way endorse or prejudge his claim to provide support for the child, or his claim to custody or visitation rights. But to deny Girard standing to bring his claim at the very outset is inherently unjust. The fact that it might appear unlikely or improbable that a given putative father might ultimately succeed on the merits of his claim in no way justifies denying him his day in court to make that claim. I am unwilling to make the arbitrary assumption that no support, custody, or visitation claim by a putative father, regarding the child of a married woman, will ever have sufficient merit to justify recognizing the standing of any such claimants. The merits of each case are most appropriately considered at the very court hearing which the putative father seeks. His minimal right to such a hearing—in elemental due process terms, “the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”17—is the only issue before this Court in this case.
Taking the broadest view of the statutory scheme, it seems to me that there would be something oddly askew with a legal framework which recognized the standing of a husband seeking to disclaim paternity of his wife s child, yet refused standing to a man seeking to claim paternity of such a child.22 There is a sadly negative cast to the
Even if the majority s interpretation of the Paternity Act were otherwise plausible, a final con-
The Michigan Constitution guarantees every individual the right not to “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
MALLETT, J., took no part in the decision of this case.
Notes
All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.
Smith found, in light of Serafin, that the statutory definition of children born “out of wedlock,” if literally construed, would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as articulating an irrational classification of children born out of wedlock. See id. at 287-289.the Serafin decision has created a gap in the law by which some children are deprived of access to support from their fathers, and often must be supported on public welfare instead—a situation which could be corrected by amending the Paternity Act to include such children. [House Legislative Analysis, HB 4389, April 11, 1979.]
Although the Court of Appeals in In re Paternity of Flynn, 130 Mich App 740, 759-760; 344 NW2d 352 (1983), determined that a[W]here a child is living with its parents, and divorce or separate maintenance proceedings have not been instituted, and there has been no finding of parental unfitness in an appropriate proceeding, the circuit court lacks the authority to enter an order giving custody to a third party over the parents objection.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would havе to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn t have to; but if he didn t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
“That s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.
“It s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.
Given the high degree of certainty permitted by modern-day paternity testing procedures, such subtle distinctions between burdens of proof are moot in any event. See Mark D. Kolins, M.D., The role of paternity testing in cases of disputed parentage, 63 Mich BJ 1169 (1984) (human leukocyte antigen [HLA] test capable of disproving paternity with certainty and of proving paternity with up to 99.9 percent accuracy).
The majority reads far too much into the text of the archaic 1941 enactment. The majority would convert a logically necessary and unremarkable consequence of the father s filing of his claim—that it “shall be a bar to the issuance of a warrant or prosecution thereof,” 1941 PA 316, § 12—into the underlying goal of the father s claim. But if the mother herself asserts the father s paternity and seeks support from him, the father, under the very terms of the 1941 enactment, can forestall the mother s complaint by acknowledging his paternity and agreeing voluntarily to an “order or arrangement for the support of [the] child,” id. The 1941 enactment made the failure of the mother to seek paternal support an actual prerequisite to the father s standing, by barring his claim where an order at the mother s instigation “has [already] been made or proceedings instituted therefor,” id. The
Given my construction of the Paternity Act, I would conclude that a man who has been properly adjudicated to be the natural father of a child under that statute qualifies as a “parent” under the Child Custody Act, and may as such litigate custody and visitation thereunder. Again, as I have already noted, it cannot be emphasized too