Michigan COA Vacates UCSO, Rules Brazilian Birth Certificate Insufficient To Establish Paternity Under Michigan Law
Opinion Published: February 19, 2025 (Gadola, C.J., and Cameron and Ackerman, JJ)
COA Docket No. 369216
Livingston County Circuit Court (Hon. Miriam Cavanagh)
Appellate Counsel: Jennifer Alberts, Speaker Law Firm
Trial Counsel: Ashley Chalut, Ashley Legal
Holding: The Court of Appeals vacated the Trial Court’s decision because the Brazilian birth certificate identifying Defendant as Father was not sufficient to establish his parentage and therefore the entry of the Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO) was erroneous.
Facts: Plaintiff-Mother lives in Brazil and is the mother of child who was born in Brazil in 2020. Defendant lives in Michigan. Plaintiff-Mother has a Brazilian birth certificate that names Defendant as Father and applied to the Brazilian central authority to establish parentage under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The application declared that Defendant was presumed to be the child’s father by virtue of his name appearing on the birth certificate. Once the application was filed, it was sent to Livingston County Prosecutor, who initiated an action to establish Defendant’s child support obligation. In response, Defendant denied his paternity of the child and requested that the child’s paternity be established.
The Trial Court agreed with Plaintiff-Mother’s argument that the Brazilian birth certificate established Defendant’s paternity under Brazilian law. The Trial Court did not allow Defendant to challenge his parentage. Instead, the Trial Court entered a UCSO, ordering Defendant to pay $1,567 per month in child support.
Short Background of Legal Analysis: Under article 7 of UIFSA, a party can seek to establish child support when no prior order exists. MCL 552.2704(2). But part of that process notes the party seeking child support (the obligee) is entitled to proceedings to establish support, including “if necessary , determination of parentage of a child.” MCL 4552.2704(2)(c). The Court of Appeals noted that under UIFSA (article 4), the Trial Court had the authority to issue a support order, “after notice and opportunity to be heard, that defendant had a duty of support.” MCL 552.2401(3). To determine whether Defendant had a duty to support, Article 3 of UIFSA requires the court to apply the procedural and substantive law of Michigan. MCL 552.2303.
Key Appellate Ruling: The trial court erred by accepting that under Brazilian law, Defendant was the legal parent of the child because his name appeared on the birth certificate. Under the laws of Michigan, Plaintiff-Mother had to prove legal parentage, which cannot be done solely by virtue of a birth certificate naming a father. The Trial Court should have allowed Defendant to challenge his legal parentage. The Trial Court also erred by accepting Plaintiff-Mother’s argument about Brazilian law without requiring any authority to support her contention. Defendant’s legal parentage was not established under Michigan law and the Trial Court’s entry of a UCSO was erroneous because the Trial Court failed to determine that Defendant had a duty to support the child.
On remand, Plaintiff-Mother must demonstrate that Defendant’s legal parentage has been established under Brazilian law, and if she cannot demonstrate as much, Defendant may challenge the parentage of the child in the Michigan child support proceeding.
