Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443 (2026)

Court action.

✓ 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

722.1443 Court action.

Sec. 13.

(1) An original action under this act must be filed in the circuit court for the county in which the mother or the child resides or, if neither the mother nor the child reside in this state, in the circuit court for the county in which the child was born. If an action for the support, custody, or parenting time of the child exists at any stage of the proceedings in a circuit court of this state or if an action under section 2(b) of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.2, is pending in a circuit court of this state, an action under this act must be brought by motion in the existing case under rules adopted by the supreme court.

(2) In an action filed under this act, the court may do any of the following:

(a) Revoke an acknowledgment of parentage.

(b) Determine that a genetic father is not a child's father.

(d) Determine that a child was born out of wedlock.

(e) Make a determination of parentage and enter an order of filiation as provided for under section 7 of the paternity act, 1956 PA 205, MCL 722.717, or a parentage order.

(3) A judgment entered under this act does not relieve an individual from a support obligation for the child or the child's parent that was incurred before the action was filed or prevent a person from seeking relief under applicable court rules to vacate or set aside a judgment.

(4) A court may refuse to enter an order setting aside a parentage determination, revoking an acknowledgment of parentage, determining that a genetic father is not a child's father, or determining that a child is born out of wedlock if the court finds evidence that the order would not be in the best interests of the child. The court must state its reasons for refusing to enter an order on the record. The court may consider the following factors:

(a) Whether the presumed parent is estopped from denying parentage because of the individual's conduct.

(b) The nature of the relationship between the child and the presumed parent or alleged father.

(d) The harm that may result to the child.

(e) Other factors that may affect the equities arising from the disruption of the parent-child relationship.

(f) Any other factor that the court determines appropriate to consider.

(5) If the challenge to parentage is based on genetic testing, in addition to the factors listed in subsection (4), the court must consider the following:

(a) The length of time the presumed parent was on notice that the individual might not be the child's genetic father.

(b) The facts surrounding the presumed parent's discovery that the individual might not be the child's genetic father.

(6) Except as otherwise provided in this act, the court shall order the parties to an action or motion under this act to participate in and pay for blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling to assist the court in making a determination under this act. Blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling must be conducted in accordance with section 6 of the paternity act, 1956 PA 205, MCL 722.716. The results of blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling are not binding on a court in making a determination under this act.

(7) Genetic testing shall not be used for either of the following purposes:

(a) To challenge the parentage of an individual who is a parent under part 2 or 3 of the assisted reproduction and surrogacy parentage act.

(b) To establish the parentage of an individual who is a donor.

(8) If the case is a title IV-D case, the court may appoint an attorney approved by the office of child support to represent this state's interests with respect to an action or a motion under this act. The court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child's interests with respect to the action or motion.

(9) A court shall not issue an order under this act that sets aside a judgment or determination of a court or administrative agency of another state, even if the judgment or determination is being enforced in this state, or that is inconsistent with 28 USC 1738A or 28 USC 1738B.

(10) This act does not establish a basis for termination of an adoption and does not affect any obligation of an adoptive parent to an adoptive child.

(11) An action may not be brought under this act concerning the parentage of either of the following:

(a) A child conceived through the use of assisted reproduction that does not involve surrogacy if the parents of the child may be determined under the assisted reproduction and surrogacy parentage act.

(b) A child conceived under a surrogacy agreement that complies with the assisted reproduction and surrogacy parentage act.

(12) A common law action that was available before June 12, 2012 to set aside a paternity determination or to determine that a child is born out of wedlock remains available until June 12, 2014, but is not available after June 12, 2014.

(13) Except for an action filed under section 15(2), a court, in its discretion, may order a party who files an action or motion under this act to post an amount of money with the court, obtain a surety, or provide other assurances that in the court's determination will secure the costs of the action and attorney fees if the party does not prevail. The court, in its discretion, may order a nonprevailing party, including a mother who is a nonprevailing party under section 15(2), to pay the reasonable attorney fees and costs of a prevailing party.

(14) A court may extend the time for filing an action or motion under this act. A request for extension must be supported by an affidavit signed by the party requesting the extension stating facts that the party satisfied all the requirements for filing an action or motion under this act but did not file the action or motion within the time allowed under this act because of 1 of the following:

(a) Mistake of fact.

(b) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been found earlier.

(d) Misrepresentation or misconduct.

(e) Duress.

(15) If the court finds that an affidavit under subsection (14) is sufficient, the court may allow the action or motion to be filed and take other action the court considers appropriate. The party filing the request to extend the time for filing has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that granting relief under this act will not be against the best interests of the child considering the equities of the case.

(16) An alleged father may not bring an action under this act if the child is conceived as the result of acts for which the alleged father was convicted of criminal sexual conduct under sections 520b to 520e of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520b to 750.520e.

(17) An action may not be brought under this act if the child is under court jurisdiction under chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.1 to 712A.32, and a petition has been filed to terminate the parental rights to the child, unless the court having jurisdiction under chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.1 to 712A.32, first finds that allowing an action under this act would be in the best interests of the child.

History: 2012, Act 159, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2012 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 374, Eff. Mar. 17, 2015 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 178, Eff. Sept. 12, 2016 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 29, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 44× “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 43× “In this case, while *122 MCL 722.1443 generally applies to any of the actions listed in subsection (2), including the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage, subsection (4) specifically addresses only paternity determinations and determinations that a child is born out of…”

In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 21× “BEST-INTEREST DETERMINATION UNDER MCL 722.1443 Modes additionally contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider the child’s best interests when determining whether to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage.”

Adler v. Dormio, 872 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “Typically, a motion under MCL 722.1439 must be filed within 3 years after the child’s birth or one year of the order of filiation, whichever is later.”

Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “On the contrary, following the divorce proceedings, the trial court retained continuing jurisdiction over child custody, child support, and parenting time, and *173 according to MCL 722.1443(1), when an action for the support, custody, or parenting time of the child exists, an…”

Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “1433(4) defines a “presumed father” as “a man who is presumed to be the child’s father by virtue of his marriage to the child’s mother at the time of the child’s conception or birth.”

Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “]” MCL 722.1443(2)(c) and (d). MCL 722.1441 “governs an action to determine that a presumed father is not a child’s father,” MCL 722.”

Rogers v. Wcisel, 877 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “1437(3). An “acknowledged father” is “a man who has affirmatively held himself out to be the child’s father by executing an acknowledgment of parentage under the acknowledgment of parentage act[.”

Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “1443 provides an exception under which a party may request an extension of time to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage: (12) A court may extend the time for filing an action or motion under this act. A request for extension shall be supported by an affidavit signed…”

Roger Skindell v. Jessica Skindell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 19× “1443(4), which provides: (4) A court may refuse to enter an order setting aside a paternity determination, revoking an acknowledgment of parentage, determining that a genetic father is not a child’s father, or determining that a child is born out of wedlock if the court finds…”

Cody Boyd v. Amanda Friskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 17× “In the event the trial court disagreed, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his complaint pursuant to MCL 722.1443, which allows an extension of time when a party, by affidavit, can demonstrate that he was unable to bring the action in a timely manner due to mistake…”

Dillon Michael Blain v. Brittney Marie Ehlert (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 16× “Lippenga argued that the best-interest factors enumerated in MCL 722.1443(4) favor revoking plaintiff’s acknowledgment of parentage because: (1) upon learning that he might be WE’s father, Lippenga took immediate steps to rectify the situation by taking a DNA test and filing the…”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(1) — 5 cases

Glaubius v. Glaubius, 855 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “On the contrary, following the divorce proceedings, the trial court retained continuing jurisdiction over child custody, child support, and parenting time, and *173 according to MCL 722.1443(1), when an action for the support, custody, or parenting time of the child exists, an…”

Dana a Taylor v. William Taylor Jr, 916 N.W.2d 652 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Dana a Taylor v. William Taylor Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Cody Boyd v. Amanda Friskey (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “In the event the trial court disagreed, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file his complaint pursuant to MCL 722.1443, which allows an extension of time when a party, by affidavit, can demonstrate that he was unable to bring the action in a timely manner due to mistake…”

Mark J Kollar v. Briana Sparks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(11) — 3 cases

Nicholas James Russian v. Shelley Porter (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(12) — 7 cases

Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “In this case, while *122 MCL 722.1443 generally applies to any of the actions listed in subsection (2), including the revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage, subsection (4) specifically addresses only paternity determinations and determinations that a child is born out of…”

Jason Ross Kalin v. Paige Katherine Fleming, 910 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1443 provides an exception under which a party may request an extension of time to seek revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage: (12) A court may extend the time for filing an action or motion under this act. A request for extension shall be supported by an affidavit signed…”

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(12)(e) — 1 case

Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(13) — 5 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(14) — 1 case

Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2) — 10 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “BEST-INTEREST DETERMINATION UNDER MCL 722.1443 Modes additionally contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider the child’s best interests when determining whether to revoke his acknowledgment of parentage.”

Parks v. Parks, 850 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “1433(4) defines a “presumed father” as “a man who is presumed to be the child’s father by virtue of his marriage to the child’s mother at the time of the child’s conception or birth.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2)(a) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2)(b) — 2 cases

Quincy Demetric Jones v. Makiah Hope Bever (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2)(c) — 4 cases

Adler v. Dormio, 872 N.W.2d 721 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Typically, a motion under MCL 722.1439 must be filed within 3 years after the child’s birth or one year of the order of filiation, whichever is later.”

Quincy Demetric Jones v. Makiah Hope Bever (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2)(d) — 7 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Shae Kevin Graham v. Sharea Foster (Mich. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(2)(e) — 2 cases

Shae Kevin Graham v. Sharea Foster (Mich. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(3) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4) — 27 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(a) — 3 cases

Jeremy Phillip Jones v. Sharon Denise Jones (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(b) — 3 cases

Roger Skindell v. Jessica Skindell (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “1443(4), which provides: (4) A court may refuse to enter an order setting aside a paternity determination, revoking an acknowledgment of parentage, determining that a genetic father is not a child’s father, or determining that a child is born out of wedlock if the court finds…”

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(d) — 4 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(e) — 1 case

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(f) — 3 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Roy Lawrence Sharpe v. Rebecca Huguelet (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(g) — 3 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Mark J Kollar v. Briana Sparks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(4)(h) — 3 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Mark J Kollar v. Briana Sparks (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(5) — 8 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.1443 subsections (4) and (5) underscore that DNA is not determinative in an action brought under the RPA.”

Nicholas James Russian v. Shelley Porter (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1443(6) — 1 case

20240118_C366736_46_366736.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

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.