The case of Barnes v. Jeudevine came out last summer, but is still worthy of discussion. The Supreme Court hotly debated this paternity appeal. I particularly admire Justice Markman's dissenting opinion.

The Court held that the biological father of a child did not have standing to sue for paternity, even though he and the mother had signed an acknowledgment of paternity and even though he was the only father the child had ever known. The case also raises interesting questions about default judgments in the divorce context.

Update:

Coincidentally after posting about Barnes v Jeudevine last night, I learned this morning that the Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion on another paternity case: Sutton v. Diane. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed to both the Michigan Supreme Court and then to the United States Supreme Court because it raises issues of equal protection and due process when suit was filed on behalf of a minor child to learn the identity of the child's father so as to access medical history and other information about the child's biological father. The COA said that the child did not have standing to commence the paternity action. Although DNA tests revealed that the mother's husband was not the child's biological father, the COA held that "we are not prepared at this time to find constitutionally protected interests under the facts presented, such that this 'paternity' action may proceed."