STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR PUBLICATION
June 26, 1998
9:10 a.m.
MICHAEL HOSHOWSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. 200080
St Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 95-003260 DP
CHRISTINA GENAW,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J. and Gribbs and R.J. Danhof*, JJ.
GRIBBS, J.
Defendant appeals by leave from an order of filiation
that deemed plaintiff to be the father of defendant’s daughter.
Defendant claimed in her application for leave that plaintiff
lacked standing to seek the order of filiation pursuant to the
Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq.; MSA 25.491 et seq., and the
Supreme Court’s ruling in Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231; 470
NW2d 372 (1991), because she was a married woman from the time of
conception to the birth of the child. In granting leave, this
Court requested that the parties address the effects of the 1994
amendments adding subsection (9) to MCL 700.111; MSA 27.5111, a
provision of the Revised Probate Code, and subsection (2) to MCL
722.714; MSA 25.494, a provision of the Paternity Act, and
whether an acknowledgment of paternity under these amendments
presumptively establishes paternity for all purposes, relieving
the putative father of the need to file a complaint under the
Paternity Act. We hold that the parties’ properly executed
affidavit of parentage establishes plaintiff as a parent under
the Revised Probate Code, and that plaintiff was not required to
first file an action under the Paternity Act before seeking
custody and parenting time under the Child Custody Act, MCL
722.21 et seq.; MSA 25.312(1) et seq. Accordingly, we affirm.
Defendant argues that this action is controlled by the
Paternity Act, because defendant’s child was not a “child born
out of wedlock” as defined under the act. MCL 722.711(a); MSA
25.491(a). We do not agree. Prior to the 1994 amendments to the
Revised Probate Code and the Paternity Act, a proper action under
the Paternity Act was necessary before a complaint could be filed
under the Child Custody Act. Afshar v Zamarron, 209 Mich App 86,
89, 92 n7; 530 NW2d 490 (1995).
However, subsection (2) to MCL 722.714; MSA 25.494, a provision
of the Paternity Act added by the 1994 amendments, now provides:
(2) An action is not required to be brought under
this act if the child’s father acknowledges paternity
under section 111 of the revised probate code, Act No.
642 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section 700.111
of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or if the child’s
paternity is established under the law of another
state. [MCL 722.714(2); MSA 25.494(2).]1
Subsection (9) to MCL 700.111; MSA 27.5111, added to the Revised
Probate Code in 1994, provides:
(9) An acknowledgment of paternity executed as
provided in this section is presumed to establish
paternity for all purposes. The acknowledgment may be
set aside by the circuit court in the county where it
is filed only if the man is proven not to be the father
by clear and convincing evidence. [MCL 700.111(9);
MSA 27.5111(9) (emphasis added).]
The amended statute also provides a specific procedure for
executing and filing this acknowledgment of paternity.
The statutory amendments are clear and unambiguous.
Because plaintiff and defendant properly executed an affidavit of
paternity when the child was born in 1995, plaintiff’s paternity
was established “for all purposes” unless he is proven not to be
the father by clear and convincing evidence. Because his
paternity has already been established, plaintiff is not required
to proceed under the Paternity Act before seeking parenting time
and custody of his child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook,
Jr.
/s/ Robert J. Danhof
1 See also the 1997 amendments to the Paternity Act,
specifically MCL 722.1004; MSA 25.604.