When a mother seeks to revoke an acknowledgment of parentage based on MCL 722.1445 – due to the child having been conceived by nonconsensual sexual penetration – the three-year limitation period contained in MCL 722.1437 does not apply, nor does the best interest analysis under MCL 722.1443(4) or (13). The case is remanded to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing so that it can make the appropriate fact findings under MCL 722.1445 by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s postjudgment motion to revoke paternity under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The affidavits in this case were deficient in showing a mistaken belief of fact by the plaintiff and failing to address the due diligence requirement in uncovering the newly discovered evidence, the Trial Court erred in failing to dismiss the case.

The trial court gave a Georgia custody order proper effect by granting the parties joint legal custody while omitting the order’s tie-breaking authority provision.

The trial court in this case properly revoked the father’s paternity to the minor child under the Revocation of Paternity Act (ROPA), the Michigan COA ruled.

The trial court in this disputed parentage case properly held that, in light of its finding that the plaintiff had committed fraud on the court.

After DNA testing showed the plaintiff was the biological father of the unmarried parties’ minor child, the trial court properly awarded the plaintiff joint legal custody of and parenting time with the child.

The rulings are concerning for prospective adoptive parents because they allow putative fathers to stop an adoption in its tracks, by obtaining an order of filiation from the trial court.

The 3-year time limit for filing a paternity challenge under ROPA does not apply when the presumed father raises the issue in a divorce action, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The COA addressed in a published opinion what it means under the Revocation of Paternity Act for there to be a "mistake of fact" justifying a revocation of an acknowledgement of paternity.

The COA held that a presumed father, ie, a mother's husband at the time of conception or birth of a child, is a necessary party to a Revocation of Paternity Act claim.

Basically, the majority says that there is not best interests analysis when there is a revocation of an acknowledgement of paternity, relying on Moiles.