Revocation of Parentage Act & Relief from Child Support Arrearages
Adler v Dormio, Docket No 319608, decided March 19, 2015 for publication is an interesting and informative decision. The Court of Appeal held that, under the Revocation of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1431, the affiliated father of a child born in 2005 has a right to a hearing in the trial court on remand to determine whether he is entitled to have child support arrearages cancelled upon the finding that he was not the biological father.
Revocation of Parentage Act, among other things, permits a man found by a court to have fathered a child out of wedlock “whose paternity was determined based on the affiliated father’s failure to participate in the court proceedings” to “file a motion with the court that made the determination to set aside the determination.” MCL 722.1439(1), 1443(2)(b). The time limit within which to file a motion is within 3 years after the child’s birth or within 1 year after the date of the order of establishing parentage. The father in Adler v Dormio, filed within 1 year of the enactment of Revocation of Parentage Act which was June 12, 2012 and is now a “savings clause” that has now lapsed.
The Court of Appeal held that, a judgment under this act does not relieve a man from a support obligation for the child or the child’s mother that was incurred before the action was filed or prevent a person from seeking relief under applicable court rules to vacate or set aside a judgment. MCL 722.1443(3)
The Revocation of Parentage Act also provides that a court may extend the time for filing an action beyond the child’s 3rd birthday under certain circumstances: See MCL 722.1443(12), which states:
“A court may extend the time for filing an action or motion under this act. A request for extension shall be supported by an affidavit signed by the person requesting the extension stating facts that the person satisfied all the requirements for filing an action or motion under this act but did not file the action or motion within the time allowed under this act because of 1 of the following:
(a) Mistake of fact.
(b) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been found earlier.
(d) Misrepresentation or misconduct.
If you need assistance with this type of family law issue or need assistance with another area in family law please contact and Gordon & Hess, PLC for a free ½ hour confidential consultations to discuss your case and how we can help you. Gordon & Hess, PLC 146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 1225, Grand Rapids, MI 49505 Telephone: 616-369-7452.