Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714 (2026)

Paternity proceeding; parties; venue; action not required; commencement of action; statute of limitations; initiating and conducting proceedings; child support formula as guideline; verification of complaint; agreement to transfer prosecutor's responsibilities; charge; summons; default judgment; genetic paternity testing; next friend or guardian ad litem; rights of indigent defendant; order of filiation.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE PATERNITY ACT

Act 205 of 1956

722.714 Paternity proceeding; parties; venue; action not required; commencement of action; statute of limitations; initiating and conducting proceedings; child support formula as guideline; verification of complaint; agreement to transfer prosecutor's responsibilities; charge; summons; default judgment; genetic paternity testing; next friend or guardian ad litem; rights of indigent defendant; order of filiation.

Sec. 4.

(1) An action under this act must be brought in the circuit court by the mother, the father, a child who became 18 years of age after August 15, 1984 and before June 2, 1986, or the department as provided in this act. The Michigan court rules for civil actions apply to all proceedings under this act. A complaint must be filed in the county where the mother or child resides. If both the mother and child reside outside of this state, the complaint must be filed in the county where the putative father resides or is found. The fact that the child was conceived or born outside of this state is not a bar to entering a complaint against the putative father.

(2) An action to determine paternity must not be brought under this act if the child's father or other parent acknowledges parentage under the acknowledgment of parentage act, 1996 PA 305, MCL 722.1001 to 722.1013, or if the child's parentage is established under the law of another state.

(3) An action under this act may be commenced during the pregnancy of the child's mother or at any time before the child reaches 18 years of age. For a child who became 18 years of age after August 15, 1984 and before June 2, 1986, an action under this act may be commenced before January 1, 1995. This subsection applies regardless of whether the cause of action accrued before June 1, 1986 and regardless of whether the cause of action was barred under this subsection before June 1, 1986. A summons issued under this section must be in the form the court determines and must be served in the same manner as is provided by court rules for the service of process in civil actions.

(4) If the county department of the county in which the mother or alleged father resides first determines that she or he has physical possession of the child and is eligible for public assistance or without means to employ an attorney; if the department is the complainant; or if the mother, alleged father, or child is receiving services under part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b, the prosecuting attorney must initiate and conduct proceedings under this act. The child support formula developed under section 19 of the friend of the court act, 1982 PA 294, MCL 552.519, must be used as a guideline in petitioning for child support. A complaint filed under this act must be verified by oath or affirmation.

(5) 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.

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

(7) The party filing the complaint must name the person believed to be the father of the child and state in the complaint the time and place, as near as possible, when and where the mother became pregnant. If the department is the plaintiff, the required facts must be stated upon information and belief.

(8) Upon the filing of a complaint, the court must issue a summons against the named defendant. If the defendant does not file and serve a responsive pleading as required by the court rules, the court may enter a default judgment. Neither party is required to testify before entry of a default judgment in a proceeding under this act.

(9) If, after service of process, the parties fail to consent to an order naming the man as the child's father as provided in this act within the time permitted for a responsive pleading, the department or its designee may file and serve both the mother and the alleged father with a notice requiring that the mother, alleged father, and child appear for genetic paternity testing as provided in section 6.

(10) If the mother, alleged father, or child does not appear for genetic paternity testing as provided in subsection (9), the department or its designee may apply to the court for an order compelling genetic paternity tests as provided in section 6 or may seek other relief as permitted by statute or court rule.

(11) It is unnecessary in any proceedings under this act commenced by or against a minor to have a next friend or guardian ad litem appointed for the minor unless required by the circuit judge. A minor may prosecute or defend any proceedings in the same manner and with the same effect as if the minor were of legal age.

(12) If a child born out of wedlock is being supported in whole or in part by public assistance, including medical assistance, the department may file a complaint on behalf of the child in the circuit court in the county in which the child resides. The mother or alleged father of the child must be made a party plaintiff and notified of the hearing on the complaint by summons. The complaint made by the department must be verified by the director of the department, or the director's designated representative, or by the director of the county department of the county in which an action is brought, or the county director's designated representative.

(13) 1986 PA 107, which added this subsection, does not affect the rights of an indigent defendant in proceedings under this act as established by decisions of the courts of this state before June 1, 1986.

(14) If a determination of paternity is made under this act, the court may enter an order of filiation as provided in section 7. Regardless of who commences an action under this act, an order of filiation entered under this act has the same effect, is subject to the same provisions, and is enforced in the same manner as an order of filiation entered on complaint of the mother or father.

History: 1956, Act 205, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1962, Act 238, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 98, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 107, Eff. June 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 289, Eff. Jan. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 388, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 308, Eff. June 1, 1997 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 113, Eff. Aug. 10, 1998 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 367, Eff. Mar. 17, 2015 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 28, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 82 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 28× “MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494. Because a man can only file a complaint to determine paternity if he is the father or putative father of a child "born out of wedlock," we focus our attention on the definition of that term.”

Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 15× “On March 29, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 722.714 because neither of the parties nor the child resided in Michigan.”

Phinisee v. Rogers, 582 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “§ 722.714; M.S.A. § 25.494. In response, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”

Spada v. Pauley, 385 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “MCL 722.714(a); MSA 25.494(a). The statute does not permit the child to commence an action to determine the child's parentage and the parent's obligation of support.”

Lme v. Ars, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “, or the family independence agency as provided in this act." (Emphasis supplied.) See also MCL 722.”

Hackley v. Hackley, 395 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 4× “[11] Our colleagues note the enactment of 1986 PA 107 , MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494, which extends the statute of limitations for paternity proceedings until the child reached eighteen years of age.”

Altman v. Nelson, 495 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “MCL 722.714(3); MSA 25.494(3). Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985).”

In Re Kh, 677 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “[16] Under the amended court rules, the definition of "child born out of wedlock" was removed and incorporated into the amended definition of "father.”

McFetridge v. Chiado, 323 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494. In any *531 event, the action is governed by the statutory six-year limitation.”

Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge, 243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976). · cites it 3× “3 As a condition to receipt of Federal aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) moneys, the state must implement a plan to establish the paternity of any child born out of wedlock on behalf of whom aid is claimed. 42 USC 602a(27), 654(4).”

Bowerman v. MacDonald, 427 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1988). · cites it 5× “” MCL 722.714(5); MSA 25.494(5). In the Senate Legislative Analysis of the amendments, it is stated: The bill goes a long way toward completing changes in the act that were begun in 1956.”

Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 675 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “See MCL 722.714(4). 2 There is no suggestion in the record that defendant genuinely disputed this fact but, given the circumstances surrounding the conception, defendant wanted verification of his fatherhood.”

Show all 82 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(1) — 15 cases

Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “On March 29, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 722.714 because neither of the parties nor the child resided in Michigan.”

In Re Kh, 677 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 2004). “[16] Under the amended court rules, the definition of "child born out of wedlock" was removed and incorporated into the amended definition of "father.”

Lme v. Ars, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “, or the family independence agency as provided in this act." (Emphasis supplied.) See also MCL 722.”

Phinisee v. Rogers, 582 N.W.2d 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 722.714; M.S.A. § 25.494. In response, defendant filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”

In Re Caw, 659 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(11) — 1 case

Roderick D Black v. Lisa Cook (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(12) — 3 cases

Ashley Rose v. Jonathan May (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

in Re J L Thomas Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

Roderick D Black v. Lisa Cook (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(14) — 1 case

20250225_C369852_49_369852P.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(2) — 10 cases

Lme v. Ars, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “, or the family independence agency as provided in this act." (Emphasis supplied.) See also MCL 722.”

Bay Cnty. Prosecutor v. Nugent, 740 N.W.2d 678 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 729 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).

Ozark v. Kais, 457 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

Hoshowski v. Genaw, 584 N.W.2d 368 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(3) — 6 cases

Altman v. Nelson, 495 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 722.714(3); MSA 25.494(3). Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985).”

Kaiser v. Schreiber, 670 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Baayoun, 514 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Morrison v. Richerson, 497 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Young v. Jangula, 440 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(4) — 3 cases

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 434 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

Roderick D Black v. Lisa Cook (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(5) — 2 cases

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991). “MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494. Because a man can only file a complaint to determine paternity if he is the father or putative father of a child "born out of wedlock," we focus our attention on the definition of that term.”

Bowerman v. MacDonald, 427 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1988). “” MCL 722.714(5); MSA 25.494(5). In the Senate Legislative Analysis of the amendments, it is stated: The bill goes a long way toward completing changes in the act that were begun in 1956.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(6) — 11 cases

Spielmaker v. Lee, 517 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

Altman v. Nelson, 495 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 722.714(3); MSA 25.494(3). Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985).”

Kaiser v. Schreiber, 670 N.W.2d 697 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 434 N.W.2d 227 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(7) — 1 case

Opland v. Kiesgan, 594 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(8) — 3 cases

Hauser v. Reilly, 536 N.W.2d 865 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Baayoun, 514 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).

State Ex Rel. Athens Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Wolf, 603 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(9) — 3 cases

Larrabee v. Sachs, 506 N.W.2d 2 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

20250225_C369852_49_369852P.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(a) — 6 cases

Spada v. Pauley, 385 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 722.714(a); MSA 25.494(a). The statute does not permit the child to commence an action to determine the child's parentage and the parent's obligation of support.”

McFetridge v. Chiado, 323 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494. In any *531 event, the action is governed by the statutory six-year limitation.”

Black v. Rasile, 318 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Pizana v. Jones, 339 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Barry Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Potter, 249 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(b) — 13 cases

McFetridge v. Chiado, 323 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494. In any *531 event, the action is governed by the statutory six-year limitation.”

Shifter v. Wolf, 327 N.W.2d 429 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

Frazier v. Castellani, 342 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Ozark v. Kais, 457 N.W.2d 145 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(c) — 10 cases

Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge, 243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976). “3 As a condition to receipt of Federal aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) moneys, the state must implement a plan to establish the paternity of any child born out of wedlock on behalf of whom aid is claimed. 42 USC 602a(27), 654(4).”

Syrkowski v. Appleyard, 362 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. 1985).

Morrison v. Richerson, 497 N.W.2d 506 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(d) — 1 case

Watson v. Diltz, 164 N.W.2d 674 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(e) — 6 cases

McDaniel v. Jackson, 259 N.W.2d 563 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).

Pridemore v. Williams, 282 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Barry Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Potter, 249 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(f) — 4 cases

Altman v. Nelson, 495 N.W.2d 826 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 722.714(3); MSA 25.494(3). Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985).”

Winsett v. Donaldson, 244 N.W.2d 355 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Syrkowski v. Appleyard, 333 N.W.2d 90 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.714(h) — 1 case

Barry Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Potter, 249 N.W.2d 370 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

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.