REVOCATION OF PARENTAGE ACT
Act 159 of 2012
722.1441 Determination that child born out of wedlock.
Sec. 11.
(1) If a child has a presumed parent, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose of establishing the child's parentage if an action is filed by the child's mother and either of the following applies:
(a) All of the following apply:
(i) The mother identifies the alleged father by name in the complaint or motion commencing the action.
(ii) The presumed parent, the alleged father, and the child's mother at some time mutually and openly acknowledged a biological relationship between the alleged father and the child.
(iii) The action is filed within 3 years after the child's birth. The requirement that an action be filed within 3 years after the child's birth does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(iv) Either the court determines the child's parentage or the child's parentage will be established under the law of this state or another jurisdiction if the child is determined to be born out of wedlock.
(b) All of the following apply:
(i) The mother identifies the alleged father by name in the complaint or motion commencing the action.
(ii) Either of the following applies:
(A) The presumed parent, having the ability to support or assist in supporting the child, has failed or neglected, without good cause, to provide regular and substantial support for the child for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action or, if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply with the order for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action.
(B) The child is less than 3 years of age and the presumed parent lives separately and apart from the child. The requirement that the child is less than 3 years of age at the time an action is filed does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(iii) Either the court determines the child's parentage or the child's parentage will be established under the law of this state or another jurisdiction if the child is determined to be born out of wedlock.
(2) If a child has a presumed parent, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose of establishing the child's parentage if an action is filed by the presumed parent within 3 years after the child's birth or if the presumed parent raises the issue in an action for divorce or separate maintenance between the presumed parent and the mother. The requirement that an action be filed within 3 years after the child's birth does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(3) If a child has a presumed parent, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose of establishing the child's parentage if an action is filed by an alleged father and any of the following applies:
(a) All of the following apply:
(i) The alleged father did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.
(ii) The presumed parent, the alleged father, and the child's mother at some time mutually and openly acknowledged a biological relationship between the alleged father and the child.
(iii) The action is filed within 3 years after the child's birth. The requirement that an action be filed within 3 years after the child's birth does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(iv) Either the court determines the child's parentage or the child's parentage will be established under the law of this state or another jurisdiction if the child is determined to be born out of wedlock.
(b) All of the following apply:
(i) The alleged father did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.
(ii) Either of the following applies:
(A) The presumed parent, having the ability to support or assist in supporting the child, has failed or neglected, without good cause, to provide regular and substantial support for the child for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action or, if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply with the order for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action.
(B) The child is less than 3 years of age and the presumed parent lives separately and apart from the child. The requirement that the child is less than 3 years of age at the time an action is filed does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(iii) Either the court determines the child's parentage or the child's parentage will be established under the law of this state or another jurisdiction if the child is determined to be born out of wedlock.
(c) Both of the following apply:
(i) The mother was not married at the time of conception.
(ii) The action is filed within 3 years after the child's birth. The requirement that an action be filed within 3 years after the child's birth does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(4) If a child has a presumed parent and the child is being supported in whole or in part by public assistance, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose of establishing the child's parentage if an action is filed by the department of human services and both of the following apply:
(a) Either of the following applies:
(i) The presumed parent, having the ability to support or assist in supporting the child, has failed or neglected, without good cause, to provide regular and substantial support for the child for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action or, if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply with the order for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the action.
(ii) The child is less than 3 years of age and the presumed parent lives separately and apart from the child. The requirement that the child is less than 3 years of age at the time an action is filed does not apply to an action filed on or before 1 year after the effective date of this act.
(b) Either the court determines the child's parentage or the child's parentage will be established under the law of this state or another jurisdiction if the child is determined to be born out of wedlock.
(5) An action under this section may be brought by a complaint filed in an original action or by a motion filed in an existing action, as appropriate under this act and rules adopted by the supreme court.
History: 2012, Act 159, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2012 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 29, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case:
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 16× “The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at *422 the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 23× “MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 11× “Specifically, plaintiffs motion sought a determination that the child had been “born out of wedlock” as defined in MCL 722.1441, and she asked the trial court to vacate portions of the divorce judgment regarding custody, parenting time, and child support.”
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 9× “MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “Relevant to this case, MCL 722.1441 is the statute that “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father.”
Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“(3) Section 11, MCL 722.1441, governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father.”
In re Daniels Est., 837 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“It also governs actions to determine that a *459 presumed father is not a child’s father, MCL 722.1441, which does focus on the biological father.”
In re Minors, 912 N.W.2d 872 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“1435(4) ; MCL 722.1441. A biological father has no standing to seek a declaration of paternity under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.”
Graham v. Foster, 874 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “MCL 722.1441(3); MCL 722.1433(e). On May 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint under the RPA.”
Dana a Taylor v. William Taylor Jr, 916 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Resolution of this case depends on the proper interpretation of this sentence in MCL 722.1441(2) : If a child has a presumed father, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose *654 of establishing the child's paternity if an action is filed by…”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 12× “The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(1) — 1 case
Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Relevant to this case, MCL 722.1441 is the statute that “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(1)(a) — 5 cases
Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Specifically, plaintiffs motion sought a determination that the child had been “born out of wedlock” as defined in MCL 722.1441, and she asked the trial court to vacate portions of the divorce judgment regarding custody, parenting time, and child support.”
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(1)(b) — 1 case
Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Specifically, plaintiffs motion sought a determination that the child had been “born out of wedlock” as defined in MCL 722.1441, and she asked the trial court to vacate portions of the divorce judgment regarding custody, parenting time, and child support.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(2) — 6 cases
Dana a Taylor v. William Taylor Jr, 916 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Resolution of this case depends on the proper interpretation of this sentence in MCL 722.1441(2) : If a child has a presumed father, a court may determine that the child is born out of wedlock for the purpose *654 of establishing the child's paternity if an action is filed by…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3) — 8 cases
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at *422 the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
Graham v. Foster, 874 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“MCL 722.1441(3); MCL 722.1433(e). On May 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint under the RPA.”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3)(a) — 5 cases
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3)(a)(i) — 3 cases
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3)(a)(iii) — 2 cases
Graham v. Foster, 874 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“MCL 722.1441(3); MCL 722.1433(e). On May 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint under the RPA.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3)(c) — 4 cases
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at *422 the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(3)(c)(i) — 1 case
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(5) — 2 cases
Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Specifically, plaintiffs motion sought a determination that the child had been “born out of wedlock” as defined in MCL 722.1441, and she asked the trial court to vacate portions of the divorce judgment regarding custody, parenting time, and child support.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(l)(a) — 3 cases
Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Relevant to this case, MCL 722.1441 is the statute that “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father.”
Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“The trial court noted that the issue before it was whether it should determine that MP was born out of wedlock under the RPA, MCL 722.1441, despite the fact that Jeffrey, having been married to Cassidie at *422 the time of MP’s birth, was MP’s presumed father under MCL 722.”
Grimes v. Van Hook-Williams, 839 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1441(1)(a) and (3)(a). As explained previously, an alleged father may commence such an action under the Revocation of Paternity Act only if he “did not know or have reason to know that the mother was married at the time of conception.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1441(l)(a)(ii) — 1 case
Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Relevant to this case, MCL 722.1441 is the statute that “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father.”
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.