Van v Zahorik, ___Mich___(1999), # 111254, 7- 7-99
Domestic Relations ReviewMr. Van and Ms. Zahorik lived together from 1986 to 1991. She had children in 1989 and 1993, told Mr. Van he was the father, gave the children his last name, and put his name on both birth certificates. By 1996 their relationship was less cordial, and Ms. Zahorik had filed a paternity action against Mr. Van. When DNA testing showed he was not the father of either child, Ms. Zahorik withdrew her paternity complaint. Mr. Van petitioned to establish paternity. Ms. Zahorik moved for summary disposition, on grounds he was not the biological father and could not be deemed an equitable parent because they had never been married. Van argued that he was an equitable parent and, further, that Zahorik should be equitably estopped from denying he was the father. The trial court gave Zahorik summary disposition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The majority's position distills to a conclusion that Mr. Van did not qualify as a third party who could bring an action under the Child Custody Act, and the court should not extend the equitable parent or equitable estoppel doctrines outside marriage. The majority overruled Guise v. Robinson, 219 Mich App 139.
The dissenting opinions point out the Child Custody Act, by its own terms, is "equitable in nature" and doesn't even define "parent", let alone limit itself to biological or adoptive parents. Justice Brickley notes that: "Examined from the standpoint of the child, whom the Legislature deems most important, I cannot agree with the majority's elevation of marriage as the sole relevant consideration. "
[Ed. Note: Me either!-- Faye]
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 12-17-99
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov