REVOCATION OF PARENTAGE ACT
Act 159 of 2012
722.1445 Determination of paternity.
Sec. 15.
(1) If an action is brought by an alleged father who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he is the child's father, the court may make a determination of paternity and enter an order of filiation as provided for under section 7 of the paternity act, 1956 PA 205, MCL 722.717.
(2) If an action is brought by a mother who, after a fact-finding hearing, proves by clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration, the court shall do 1 of the following:
(a) Revoke an acknowledgment of parentage for an acknowledged father.
(b) Determine that a genetic father is not the child's father.
(c) Set aside an order of filiation for an affiliated father.
(d) Make a determination of paternity regarding an alleged father and enter an order of revocation of parentage for that alleged father.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, after the date of the alleged nonconsensual sexual penetration described in subsection (2), the biological parents cohabit and establish a mutual custodial environment for the child.
(4) As used in this section, "sexual penetration" means that term as defined in section 520a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a.
History: 2012, Act 159, Imd. Eff. June 12, 2012 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 178, Eff. Sept. 12, 2016 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 29, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 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 17× “MCL 722.1445 specifies that the clear and convincing standard of proof applies regarding the evidence that an alleged father “is the child’s father[.”
Sprenger v. Bickle, 861 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“Defendant, and evidently the trial court, relied on MCL 722.1445, which provides that “[i]f an action is brought by an alleged father who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he is the child’s father, the court may make a determination of paternity and enter an order of…”
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1445(5), to which MCL 722.1437(2) refers, in turn refers to the procedures under the MCL 722.”
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 14× “2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
Quincy Demetric Jones v. Makiah Hope Bever (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Bever filed a counter-claim for acknowledgment of paternity, arguing that Jones was ineligible to be the child’s father under MCL 722.1445 because the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration.”
Joseph Richard Demski v. Cassidie Petlick (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “Based on that finding, the trial court, on August 29, 2013, entered an order of filiation, determining paternity pursuant to MCL 722.1445. The trial court’s order also required that plaintiff meet with Zollar for a “concluding evaluation.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(1) — 1 case
Quincy Demetric Jones v. Makiah Hope Bever (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Bever filed a counter-claim for acknowledgment of paternity, arguing that Jones was ineligible to be the child’s father under MCL 722.1445 because the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(2) — 2 cases
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
Quincy Demetric Jones v. Makiah Hope Bever (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Bever filed a counter-claim for acknowledgment of paternity, arguing that Jones was ineligible to be the child’s father under MCL 722.1445 because the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(2)(a) — 1 case
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(2)(b) — 1 case
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(2)(c) — 1 case
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(4) — 1 case
Shannon Blackman v. Tyler David Millward (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“2016 PA 178 revised the ROPA by adding subsections to MCL 722.1445 in order to meet the requirement under the federal RSCCA to ensure “termination of parental rights” of the assailant, as defined at 34 USC 21301(2).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.1445(5) — 1 case
In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“MCL 722.1445(5), to which MCL 722.1437(2) refers, in turn refers to the procedures under the MCL 722.”
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.