The Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA); Standing; Whether plaintiff “did not know or have reason to know” that the child’s mother was married when the child was conceived; MCL 722.1441(3)(a)(i); Sprenger v Bickle; Applicability of the presumption of paternity; Effect of the fact defendants have an open marriage

Holding that the trial court did not err in applying the RPA and that plaintiff did not have standing under the RPA, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his claim. The case arose from an extra-marital relationship between plaintiff and defendant-mother. At all relevant times, the mother was married to the other defendant and they had an open marriage. The only factual dispute was “whether plaintiff ‘did not know or have reason to know’ that” the mother was married when the child was conceived (MCL 722.1441(3)(a)(i)). “There was no genuine factual dispute as to whether defendants were married when” the child was conceived. Affidavits showed that plaintiff and the mother dated, but they did “not prove she was divorced.” Plaintiff acknowledged in his complaint that he and the mother “dated while she was married. Although [he] and his family may have believed [she] was going to get divorced, this does not equate to her actually getting divorced.” The court stated in Sprenger that the “‘mother’s marital status must be more than merely doubtful to the alleged father; he must actually have been unaware that she was married and without good reason to believe she was in fact married.’” There was no evidence here that the mother “told plaintiff that her divorce had been finalized. Further, there” was no evidence they discussed her “relationship status as changing after acknowledging she was married and considering divorce. There was no evidence that defendants proceeded with divorce or told plaintiff they had, so it was unreasonable for” him to think otherwise. As in “Sprenger, ‘the child here was conceived during the marriage, plaintiff was fully aware that defendant was still married . . . .’” The court also rejected his argument that the RPA’s presumption of paternity should not apply because defendants had an open marriage. “Simply put, an open marriage is a marriage.”