paternity claim in Michigan

2006Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 ; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Aichele v Hodge, 259 Mich App 146 ; 673 NW2d 452 (2003); Kaiser v Schreiber, 469 Mich 944 (2003).

2006Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 ; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Aichele v Hodge, 259 Mich App 146 ; 673 NW2d 452 (2003); Kaiser v Schreiber, 469 Mich 944 (2003).

2026Id. at 564 .

2006Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 ; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Aichele v Hodge, 259 Mich App 146 ; 673 NW2d 452 (2003); Kaiser v Schreiber, 469 Mich 944 (2003).

2006Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231 ; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Aichele v Hodge, 259 Mich App 146 ; 673 NW2d 452 (2003); Kaiser v Schreiber, 469 Mich 944 (2003).

2003While there does not appear to be collusion between plaintiff and defendant in this case (I note, however, that although paternity was not challenged by defendant, plaintiff did not attach evidence of the paternity test results to his complaint), the majority's ruling provides no bar to such collusion between a claimed putative father and a woman married to someone else, who, for whatever reason, wish to rebut, without notice, the legal presumption of fatherhood bestowed on the husband. [3] I note that unlike a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under MCR 2.116(C)(5), a motion for summary

2003While there does not appear to be collusion between plaintiff and defendant in this case (I note, however, that although paternity was not challenged by defendant, plaintiff did not attach evidence of the paternity test results to his complaint), the majority's ruling provides no bar to such collusion between a claimed putative father and a woman married to someone else, who, for whatever reason, wish to rebut, without notice, the legal presumption of fatherhood bestowed on the husband. [3] I note that unlike a motion to dismiss for lack of standing under MCR 2.116(C)(5), a motion for summary

1998Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. [6] JMS, supra, was reversed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in JMS v. Benson, 98 Wis.2d 406, 413-415 , 297 N.W.2d 18 (1980), but that case was itself subsequently overruled by the same court in In re Paternity of RWL, 116 Wis.2d 150, 162-163 , 341 N.W.2d 682 (1984). [7] This is not to imply that whenever a putative father is faced with a paternity test yielding a probability of this magnitude, a denial of paternity is a basis for

1998Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. [6] JMS, supra, was reversed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in JMS v. Benson, 98 Wis.2d 406, 413-415 , 297 N.W.2d 18 (1980), but that case was itself subsequently overruled by the same court in In re Paternity of RWL, 116 Wis.2d 150, 162-163 , 341 N.W.2d 682 (1984). [7] This is not to imply that whenever a putative father is faced with a paternity test yielding a probability of this magnitude, a denial of paternity is a basis for

1998Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. [6] JMS, supra, was reversed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in JMS v. Benson, 98 Wis.2d 406, 413-415 , 297 N.W.2d 18 (1980), but that case was itself subsequently overruled by the same court in In re Paternity of RWL, 116 Wis.2d 150, 162-163 , 341 N.W.2d 682 (1984). [7] This is not to imply that whenever a putative father is faced with a paternity test yielding a probability of this magnitude, a denial of paternity is a basis for

1998Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. [6] JMS, supra, was reversed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in JMS v. Benson, 98 Wis.2d 406, 413-415 , 297 N.W.2d 18 (1980), but that case was itself subsequently overruled by the same court in In re Paternity of RWL, 116 Wis.2d 150, 162-163 , 341 N.W.2d 682 (1984). [7] This is not to imply that whenever a putative father is faced with a paternity test yielding a probability of this magnitude, a denial of paternity is a basis for

1996It distinguished the case before it from Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), which analyzed a paternity challenge on res judicata grounds.

1996It distinguished the case before it from Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), which analyzed a paternity challenge on res judicata grounds.

1996Defendant cites Dep’t of Social Services v Franzel, 204 Mich App 385 ; 516 NW2d 495 (1994), which involved a paternity challenge in the context of an unmarried putative father.

1996Defendant cites Dep’t of Social Services v Franzel, 204 Mich App 385 ; 516 NW2d 495 (1994), which involved a paternity challenge in the context of an unmarried putative father.

1991See Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 750-751 ; 104 S Ct 3315 ; 82 L Ed 2d 556 (1984); Los Angeles v Lyons, 461 US 95, 101-102 ; 103 S Ct 1660 ; 75 L Ed 2d 675 (1983). 14 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.

1991See Allen v Wright, 468 US 737, 750-751 ; 104 S Ct 3315 ; 82 L Ed 2d 556 (1984); Los Angeles v Lyons, 461 US 95, 101-102 ; 103 S Ct 1660 ; 75 L Ed 2d 675 (1983). 14 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.