Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717 (2026)

Order of filiation; circumstances; contents; support order; retroactivity; enforcement of judgment or order; fee; report to department director; service of copies to parties.

✓ 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

722.717 Order of filiation; circumstances; contents; support order; retroactivity; enforcement of judgment or order; fee; report to department director; service of copies to parties.

Sec. 7.

(1) In an action under this act, the court must enter an order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for the support of the child under 1 or more of the following circumstances:

(a) The finding of the court or the verdict determines that the man is the father.

(b) The defendant acknowledges paternity either orally to the court or by filing with the court a written acknowledgment of parentage.

(d) Genetic testing under section 6 determines that the man is the father.

(2) An order of filiation entered under subsection (1) must specify the sum to be paid weekly or otherwise, as prescribed in section 5 of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605, until the child reaches the age of 18. Subject to section 5b of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.605b, the court may also order support for a child after the child reaches 18 years of age. In addition to providing for the support of the child, the order must also provide for the payment of the necessary expenses connected to the mother's pregnancy and the birth of the child and for the funeral expenses if the child has died, as determined by the court under section 2. A child support obligation is only retroactive to the date that the paternity complaint was filed unless any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The defendant was avoiding service of process.

(b) The defendant threatened or coerced through domestic violence or other means the complainant not to file a proceeding under this act.

(3) A judgment or order entered under this act providing for the support of a child or payment of expenses connected to the mother's pregnancy or the birth of the child is enforceable as provided in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650. If this act contains a specific provision regarding the contents or enforcement of a support order that conflicts with a provision in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL 552.601 to 552.650, this act controls in regard to that provision.

(4) Upon entry of an order of filiation, the clerk of the court must collect a fee of $9.00 for entering the order and the fee imposed by section 2891(9)(a) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.2891, from the person against whom the order of filiation is entered. The clerk must retain the $9.00 fee and remit the fee imposed by section 2891(9)(a) of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.2891, with a written report of the order of filiation, to the department director. The report must be on a form prescribed by or in a manner approved by the department director. Regardless of whether the fees required by this section are collected, the clerk must transmit and the department must receive the report of the order of filiation.

(5) If an order of filiation or acknowledgment of parentage is abrogated by a later judgment or order of a court, the clerk of the court that entered the order must immediately communicate that fact to the department director on a form prescribed by the department director. An order of filiation supersedes an acknowledgment of parentage.

(6) Within the time prescribed by court rule, the party, attorney, or agency that secures the signing of an order of filiation must serve a copy of the order on all parties to the action and file proof of service with the court clerk.

History: 1956, Act 205, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1962, Act 238, Eff. Mar. 28, 1963 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 107, Eff. June 1, 1986 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 277, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1989 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 244, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 1990 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 294, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 1990 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 146, Imd. Eff. Aug. 19, 1993 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 388, Eff. Oct. 1, 1995 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 18, Eff. June 1, 1996 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 308, Eff. June 1, 1997 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 109, Eff. Sept. 30, 2001 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 209, Eff. Oct. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 235, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2010 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 364, Eff. Mar. 17, 2015 ;-- Am. 2024, Act 28, Eff. Apr. 2, 2025

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · 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 15× “MCL 722.717.” MCL 722.1443(2)(d). DNA testing revealed that Demski fathered MP.”

Ghidotti v. Barber, 586 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 16× “[MCL 722.717(3); MSA 25.497(3).] *886 The Friend of the Court Bureau has written, distributed, and frequently revised the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual pursuant to this legislative mandate.”

Caldwell v. Chapman, 610 N.W.2d 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 11× “Defendant appeals by leave granted from the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff child *126 support that accrued before plaintiff filed her complaint seeking an order of filiation and child support pursuant to MCL 722.717; MSA 25.497. We affirm. The parties in this case have…”

Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717 (1). The statute directs the court to “specify the sum to be paid weekly or otherwise” in the order of filiation.”

Helton v. Beaman, 850 N.W.2d 515 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “The Moiles Court concluded that “the Legislature expressly finked a ‘determination of paternity’ to the section 7 of the Paternity Act,” MCL 722.717, and that “the Legislature’s use of the phrase ‘paternity determination’ in MCL 722.”

Thompson v. Merritt, 481 N.W.2d 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “Regarding defendant’s argument concerning retroactive modification, the statutory language of MCL 722.717(2); MSA 25.497(2) provides for "the payment of the necessary expenses incurred .”

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 4× “The mother of the child shall be made a party defendant and notified of the hearing on the complaint by summons which shall be in such form as the court shall determine and shall be served in the same manner as is provided by court rules for the service of process in civil…”

In Re Mkk, 781 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “MCL 722.717(1) states: The court shall enter an order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for the support of the child under 1 or more of the following circumstances: (a) The finding of the court or the verdict determines that the man is the father.”

Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “The retroactive child support order was permitted by MCL 722.717(2), which states, in pertinent part: A child support obligation is only retroactive to the date that the paternity complaint was filed unless any of the following circumstances exist: (a) The defendant was avoiding…”

In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “(d) 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. *75 (4) A court may refuse to enter an order setting aside a paternity determination or determining that a child is born out of…”

Lme v. Ars, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “714b (establishment of paternity under the law of another state has the same effect as an acknowledgment of paternity or an order of filiation entered in this state), MCL 722.717 (providing for order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for support of child), MCL 552.”

Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 729 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “7 MCL 722.717(5), which provides, in part, that “[a]n order of filiation supersedes an acknowledgment of parentage,” supports our conclusion that a father cannot be legally recognized under both the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act and the Paternity Act.”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(1) — 11 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.717.” MCL 722.1443(2)(d). DNA testing revealed that Demski fathered MP.”

Girard v. Wagenmaker, 470 N.W.2d 372 (Mich. 1991). “The mother of the child shall be made a party defendant and notified of the hearing on the complaint by summons which shall be in such form as the court shall determine and shall be served in the same manner as is provided by court rules for the service of process in civil…”

In Re Mkk, 781 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “MCL 722.717(1) states: The court shall enter an order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for the support of the child under 1 or more of the following circumstances: (a) The finding of the court or the verdict determines that the man is the father.”

In re Moiles, 840 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “(d) 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. *75 (4) A court may refuse to enter an order setting aside a paternity determination or determining that a child is born out of…”

in Re Koehler Est., 314 Mich. App. 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(1)(a) — 3 cases

in Re Koehler Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

In Re Seybert Est. (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

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

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(1)(c) — 1 case

Candice Bennett v. Alvis Perry (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(2) — 11 cases

Caldwell v. Chapman, 610 N.W.2d 264 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendant appeals by leave granted from the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff child *126 support that accrued before plaintiff filed her complaint seeking an order of filiation and child support pursuant to MCL 722.717; MSA 25.497. We affirm. The parties in this case have…”

Thompson v. Merritt, 481 N.W.2d 735 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “Regarding defendant’s argument concerning retroactive modification, the statutory language of MCL 722.717(2); MSA 25.497(2) provides for "the payment of the necessary expenses incurred .”

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.717.” MCL 722.1443(2)(d). DNA testing revealed that Demski fathered MP.”

Rose v. Stokely, 655 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

Rose v. Stokely, 673 N.W.2d 413 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(2)(a) — 1 case

Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “The retroactive child support order was permitted by MCL 722.717(2), which states, in pertinent part: A child support obligation is only retroactive to the date that the paternity complaint was filed unless any of the following circumstances exist: (a) The defendant was avoiding…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(2)(c) — 2 cases

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(3) — 5 cases

Ghidotti v. Barber, 586 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. 1998). “[MCL 722.717(3); MSA 25.497(3).] *886 The Friend of the Court Bureau has written, distributed, and frequently revised the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual pursuant to this legislative mandate.”

Proudfit v. O'NEAL, 484 N.W.2d 746 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Ghidotti v. Barber, 564 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).

Jocelyne Green v. Kwende Ried (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(4) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(5) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(a) — 4 cases

Bowerman v. MacDonald, 427 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 1988).

Butler v. Cann, 233 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

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

Moon v. Ballinger, 403 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(b) — 6 cases

Bass v. Spitz, 522 F. Supp. 1343 (E.D. Mich. 1981).

Boyles v. Brown, 245 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976).

Oviedo v. Ozierey, 304 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Houfek v. Shafer, 151 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967).

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

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(l)(a) — 2 cases

Demski v. Petlick, 873 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “MCL 722.717.” MCL 722.1443(2)(d). DNA testing revealed that Demski fathered MP.”

in Re Koehler Est., 314 Mich. App. 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.717(l)(b) — 2 cases

MacOmb Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Westerman, 645 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

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.