Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 722 / Act 159 of 2012
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437 (2026)

Action for revocation of acknowledgment of parentage; filing; agreement to transfer prosecutor's responsibilities; proceeding on behalf of state; affidavit; order for blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling; forwarding copy of order to state registrar; vacating acknowledgment of parentage; amending birth certificate; representation.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVOCATION OF PARENTAGE ACT


Act 159 of 2012


722.1437 Action for revocation of acknowledgment of parentage; filing; agreement to transfer prosecutor's responsibilities; proceeding on behalf of state; affidavit; order for blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling; forwarding copy of order to state registrar; vacating acknowledgment of parentage; amending birth certificate; representation.

Sec. 7.

    (1) The mother, the acknowledged parent, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney may file an action for revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage. An action under this section must be filed within 3 years after the child's birth or within 1 year after the date that the acknowledgment of parentage was signed, whichever is later. The requirement that an action be filed within 3 years after the child's birth or within 1 year after the date the acknowledgment is signed does not apply to an action filed on or before June 12, 2013.

    (2) The prosecuting attorney and the department may enter into an agreement to transfer the prosecutor's responsibilities under this act to 1 of the following:

    (a) The friend of the court, with the approval of the chief judge of the circuit court.

    (b) An attorney employed or contracted by the county under section 1 of 1941 PA 15, MCL 49.71.

    (c) An attorney employed by, or under contract with, the department.

    (3) A proceeding under this section is conducted on behalf of the state and not as the attorney for any other party.

    (4) An action for revocation under this section must be supported by an affidavit signed by the person filing the action that states facts that constitute 1 of the following:

    (a) Mistake of fact.

    (b) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been found before the acknowledgment was signed.

    (c) Fraud.

    (d) Misrepresentation or misconduct.

    (e) Duress in signing the acknowledgment.

    (5) If the court in an action for revocation under this section finds that an affidavit under subsection (4) is sufficient, the court must order blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling as required under section 13(5). The person filing the action has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the acknowledged parent is not the father of the child.

    (6) The clerk of the court must forward a copy of an order of revocation entered under this section to the state registrar. The state registrar must vacate the acknowledgment of parentage and may amend the birth certificate as prescribed by the order of revocation.

    (7) Whether an action for revocation under this section is brought by a complaint in an original action or by a motion in an existing action, the prosecuting attorney, an attorney appointed by the county, the friend of the court, or an attorney appointed by the court is not required to represent any party regarding the action for revocation.

    

    

History: 2012, Act 159, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2012 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 368, Eff. Mar. 17, 2015 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 29, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 22× “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 18× “9 Pertinent to this case, the act provides that MCL 722.1437 “governs an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage.”
Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “1437(1) of the RPA provides that “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney” may file an action for the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage within three years after the child’s birth or within one year after the acknowledgment…”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “However, MCL 722.1437 addresses revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage, and plaintiff eventually stipulated the withdrawal of the claim, considering that no such document ever existed.”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “See MCL 722.1437(3). Accordingly, it is appropriate to use the burden of persuasion applicable to disputes between parents, which results in a presumption in favor of maintaining the child’s established custodial environment.”
Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for *102 the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child's *710 birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “For *166 example, MCL 722.1437 provides the methods for setting aside an acknowledgement of parentage.”
In re Daniels Est., 837 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “, provides methods that allow an individual to set aside an acknowledgement of parentage, MCL 722.1437, or an order of filiation, MCL 722.”
Cody Boyd v. Amanda Friskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× ““Accordingly, MCL 722.1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child’s birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
Cameron Lee Beilfuss v. Allison Nicole Adams (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “Thereafter, Adams moved to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage under MCL 722.1437. The motion was supported by Adams’ affidavit, wherein she asserted that Robey, not Beilfuss, was KA’s biological father.”
Denise R Ketchmark v. Archie L Hayman (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “THE REVOCATION OF PATERNITY ACT Actions to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage are governed by MCL 722.1437. Id. at 66. That section specifically permits certain individuals, including an acknowledged father like defendant,13 to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of…”
20240118_C366736_46_366736.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “[MCL 722.1437.] “The results of blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling are not binding on a court in making a determination under this act.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(1) — 22 cases
Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1437(1) of the RPA provides that “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney” may file an action for the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage within three years after the child’s birth or within one year after the acknowledgment…”
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9 Pertinent to this case, the act provides that MCL 722.1437 “governs an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage.”
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for *102 the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child's *710 birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
Cody Boyd v. Amanda Friskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). ““Accordingly, MCL 722.1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child’s birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(2) — 12 cases
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1437(1) of the RPA provides that “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney” may file an action for the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage within three years after the child’s birth or within one year after the acknowledgment…”
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9 Pertinent to this case, the act provides that MCL 722.1437 “governs an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “However, MCL 722.1437 addresses revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage, and plaintiff eventually stipulated the withdrawal of the claim, considering that no such document ever existed.”
Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for *102 the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child's *710 birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(2)(a) — 1 case
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(2)(d) — 1 case
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9 Pertinent to this case, the act provides that MCL 722.1437 “governs an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(3) — 5 cases
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1437(1) of the RPA provides that “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney” may file an action for the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage within three years after the child’s birth or within one year after the acknowledgment…”
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “9 Pertinent to this case, the act provides that MCL 722.1437 “governs an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage.”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “See MCL 722.1437(3). Accordingly, it is appropriate to use the burden of persuasion applicable to disputes between parents, which results in a presumption in favor of maintaining the child’s established custodial environment.”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(4) — 11 cases
Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1437(1) of the RPA provides that “[t]he mother, the acknowledged father, an alleged father, or a prosecuting attorney” may file an action for the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage within three years after the child’s birth or within one year after the acknowledgment…”
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “2 When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.”
Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1437 provides no basis under which a parent may file an action for *102 the revocation of paternity later than three years after the child's *710 birth or later than one year after the signing of the acknowledgment of parentage.”
Dillon Michael Blain v. Brittney Marie Ehlert (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Denise R Ketchmark v. Archie L Hayman (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “THE REVOCATION OF PATERNITY ACT Actions to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage are governed by MCL 722.1437. Id. at 66. That section specifically permits certain individuals, including an acknowledged father like defendant,13 to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(4)(a) — 1 case
20240118_C366736_46_366736.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 722.1437.] “The results of blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling are not binding on a court in making a determination under this act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(4)(b) — 1 case
20240118_C366736_46_366736.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 722.1437.] “The results of blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling are not binding on a court in making a determination under this act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(5) — 5 cases
Denise R Ketchmark v. Archie L Hayman (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “THE REVOCATION OF PATERNITY ACT Actions to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage are governed by MCL 722.1437. Id. at 66. That section specifically permits certain individuals, including an acknowledged father like defendant,13 to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of…”
Dillon Michael Blain v. Brittney Marie Ehlert (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Cameron Lee Beilfuss v. Allison Nicole Adams (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Thereafter, Adams moved to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage under MCL 722.1437. The motion was supported by Adams’ affidavit, wherein she asserted that Robey, not Beilfuss, was KA’s biological father.”
20240118_C366736_46_366736.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “[MCL 722.1437.] “The results of blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling are not binding on a court in making a determination under this act.”
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1437(7) — 1 case
Denise R Ketchmark v. Archie L Hayman (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “THE REVOCATION OF PATERNITY ACT Actions to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage are governed by MCL 722.1437. Id. at 66. That section specifically permits certain individuals, including an acknowledged father like defendant,13 to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.