Revocation of Parentage Act (RPA); MCL 722.1443(4); Best interests; Conception as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration

In this case involving “a child and her parentage, conception, and best interests under the” RPA, the court vacated the trial court’s order of filiation and remanded for a proper analysis of the child’s best interests. On remand, if the trial court again finds that appellant-mother’s (Bever) “has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration, then it must take evidence and make factual findings regarding the child’s best interests with a proper focus on the child’s interests rather than on” appellee-Jones’s interests. When the child was born Bever “indicated that her then-boyfriend and now husband was the child’s father, and he signed the acknowledgment of parentage.” Jones subsequently “alleged that he was the child’s biological father. After a DNA test indicated that Jones was the biological father, the trial court’s order of filiation revoked Bever’s husband’s acknowledgment of parentage and established Jones as the child’s father.” Bever argued “that the trial court was required under MCL 722.1443(4) to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the child’s best interest.” The court found that the “trial court’s focus was on Jones’s desire to be involved in the child’s life and Bever’s attempts to prevent his involvement; such analysis may be relevant but does not alone establish that it is in the child’s best interests not to set aside the determination that Jones is the father. When focusing on the child, the trial court mentioned aspects that would negate best interests if Jones was left as the father. The trial court mentioned that there was ‘undoubtedly a strong relationship between’ the child and Bever’s husband, that the child was then seven years old, and that the child would likely experience disruption by the change in father. But it then concluded that it was in the child’s ‘best interests to be reunited with her biological father who has been fighting to be involved in her life since shortly after she was born.’ The trial court’s opinion did not meet the MCL 722.1443(4) requirements for findings of fact or statements of reasons.”