Helton v. Beaman
| Decision Date | 04 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 314857. |
| Parties | HELTON v. BEAMAN. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gentry Nalley PLLC, Whitmore Lake (by Kevin S. Gentry), for plaintiff.
Arnold L. Weiner, Pontiac, for defendants.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and O'CONNELL and K.F. KELLY, JJ.
In this action brought under the Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1431 et seq., plaintiff seeks to revoke defendants' acknowledgment of parentage of a nine-year-old child whom defendants have raised from birth. After a bench trial, the circuit court denied plaintiff's request and also denied plaintiff's requests for an order of filiation and parenting time. Plaintiff now appeals by right.
We conclude that the circuit court reached the correct result, albeit for incorrect reasons. “This Court ordinarily affirms a trial court's decision if it reached the right result, even for the wrong reasons.” Wickings v. Arctic Enterprises, Inc., 244 Mich.App. 125, 150, 624 N.W.2d 197 (2000). We affirm on grounds other than those relied on by the circuit court.
Defendants, Lisa and Douglas Beaman, have been in a relationship for more than 10 years. In the fall of 2002, they separated for a few weeks. During those weeks, Lisa had a brief sexual relationship with plaintiff, Matthew Helton. Lisa and Douglas then reunited, but did not marry. In June 2003, Lisa gave birth to the child who is the subject of this action. Douglas accompanied Lisa to the hospital for the child's birth. While at the hospital, both defendants signed an affidavit of parentage that established Douglas as the child's father.1 The child's birth certificate identifies both defendants as the child's parents.
Defendants began raising the child as part of their family, along with three other children. When the child was an infant, defendants allowed Helton to see the child periodically. When the child was approximately two months old, Helton asked to have DNA paternity testing conducted for the child. Defendants agreed to allow the testing, which was performed in 2003. Defendants opted to halt Helton's interaction with the child until he obtained the DNA results.
Although Helton planned to pay for the DNA testing, he failed to make full payment to the DNA laboratory for three years. Because of Helton's delay in payment, the parties did not receive the DNA results until 2006. The results established that Helton is the child's biological father. After receiving the DNA results, Helton visited the child a few times. Helton's visits then ceased. There was conflicting testimony at trial about whether Helton voluntarily stopped visiting the child or defendants decided against allowing further visits.
Four years after receiving the DNA results, when the child was seven years old, Helton brought suit against defendants seeking an order of filiation and parenting time with the child. By this time, the child had not visited with Helton for several years. While Helton's suit was pending, defendants married. The circuit court subsequently dismissed Helton's suit by stipulation.2
When the child was nine years old, Helton brought suit against defendants under §§ 7 and 13 of the newly enacted Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1437 and 722.1443. Helton submitted the DNA results to the circuit court and moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) (). The circuit court found that although the DNA results proved that Helton was the child's biological father, the DNA results standing alone were insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendants' acknowledgment of parentage should be set aside.
The circuit court later held a bench trial and then issued an opinion and order. In the opinion, the court stated that it had weighed the credibility of the parties and that it found Lisa's testimony more credible than Helton's testimony with regard to Helton's failure to continue a relationship with the child. The court specifically found that Helton had no parental relationship with the child. The court concluded that the evidence established that “it is not in [the child's] best interest to grant the relief requested by Plaintiff.” Citing MCL 722.1443(4), the court denied Helton's request to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. The court also denied Helton's requests for an order of filiation and parenting time.
In an action to set aside an acknowledgment of parentage, the circuit court must make factual findings concerning the sufficiency of the plaintiff's supporting affidavit. See MCL 722.1437(3); see also In re Moiles, 303 Mich.App. 59, 66–67, 840 N.W.2d 790 (2013), lv pending.* If the plaintiff's affidavit is sufficient, the circuit court must then determine whether to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. See MCL 722.1437(3) and 722.1443(5).
We review for clear error the circuit court's factual findings on the sufficiency of the plaintiff's affidavit; we also review for clear error the circuit court's determination on the revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage. See Moiles, 303 Mich.App. at 66, 840 N.W.2d 790.3 To the extent that the circuit court made conclusions of law, those conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id.
A plaintiff filing an action for revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage must submit an affidavit attesting to the basis for the revocation action. MCL 722.1437(2). The plaintiff must state facts that constitute at least one of the five factors listed in Subsection (2) of MCL 722.1437:
(a) Mistake of fact.
(b) Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been found before the acknowledgment was signed.
(c) Fraud.
(d) Misrepresentation or misconduct.
(e) Duress in signing the acknowledgment. [MCL 722.1437(2).]
In turn, Subsection (3) of the same section requires the circuit court to make a determination of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's affidavit before ruling on the revocation request:
If the court in an action for revocation under this section finds that an affidavit under subsection (2) is sufficient, the court shall order blood or tissue typing or DNA identification profiling as required under [MCL 722.1443(5) ]. The person filing the action has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the acknowledged father is not the father of the child. [MCL 722.1437(3) (emphasis added).]
In this case, Helton's affidavit listed three grounds for revocation: mistake of fact, misconduct, and fraud. Specifically, Helton attested that “[t]he DNA test report demonstrates that there was a mistake of fact, in that [Douglas] is not the Father.” Helton further alleged that defendants engaged in misconduct or fraud by executing the acknowledgment of parentage. Helton attested that he had sexual relations with Lisa in September 2002 and that Lisa knew he might be the father of the child born in June 2003. Helton went on to attest that Lisa “induced” Douglas to execute an acknowledgment of parentage.
The circuit court did not directly rule on the sufficiency of Helton's affidavit.5 After hearing the trial testimony, the circuit court implicitly rejected Helton's assertions of misconduct and fraud. The court found that when the child was born, both defendants believed that Douglas was the child's biological father. Although Helton disputed defendants' testimony regarding their belief that Douglas was the biological father, we defer to the circuit court's credibility determinations. MCR 2.613(C); Woodington v. Shokoohi, 288 Mich.App. 352, 355, 792 N.W.2d 63 (2010). Given that defendants believed Douglas to be the child's biological father at the time they signed the affidavit of parentage, Helton's assertions of misconduct and fraud are insufficient to support his action for revocation. 6
In contrast, Helton's assertion of mistake of fact is a sufficient basis to proceed with the revocation action. The DNA evidence supports Helton's attestation that he is the child's biological father, and the trial testimony indicates that defendants mistakenly believed that Douglas was the child's biological father. When a defendant's decision to sign an affidavit of parentage was based in part on a mistaken belief that he is the child's biological father, that mistaken belief constitutes a mistake of fact sufficient to proceed with a revocation action. Bay Co. Prosecutor v. Nugent, 276 Mich.App. 183, 189–190, 740 N.W.2d 678 (2007) (). Accordingly, Helton's affidavit in this case was sufficient to allow the circuit court to proceed to determine whether to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage.
The Acknowledgment of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1001 et seq., confers the status of natural and legal father upon a man who executes an affidavit of parentage. Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich.App. 149, 152, 729 N.W.2d 256 (2006). The affidavit of parentage provides notice to the male signatory that he has the responsibility to support the child. MCL 722.1007(f). In addition, a valid acknowledgment of parentage may serve as the basis for child support, custody, and parenting time. MCL 722.1004. Once the acknowledgment of parentage is complete, the child has “the identical status, rights, and duties of a child born in lawful wedlock effective from birth.” Id.
A man who executes an acknowledgment of parentage is known for legal purposes as the “acknowledged father.” MCL 722.1433(1). In contrast, a man who obtains an order of filiation is known for legal purposes as an “affiliated father.” MCL 722.1433(2). The existence of a valid acknowledgment of parentage by one man precludes a court from entering an order of filiation for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeFever v. Matthews
...results, standing alone, are sufficient to require revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage." Helton v. Beaman , 304 Mich. App. 97, 108, 850 N.W.2d 515 (2014) (opinion by O'CONNELL , J.).The Safe Delivery of Newborns Law states that a party petitioning for custody of a newborn may be or......
-
Demski v. Petlick
...to assign the burden of persuasion to plaintiff. Further, they argue that plaintiff's burden, as articulated in Helton v. Beaman, 304 Mich.App. 97, 850 N.W.2d 515 (2014), was to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a change in custodial environment was in the child's best inter......
-
Howerton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
...and one legal mother[,]" so "Illinois law does not authorize a child to have two legal fathers and one legal mother"); Helton v. Beaman, 304 Mich.App. 97, 106, 850 N.W.2d 515, 521 (2014) ("[a] child may have only one legal father."); Dep't of Soc. Servs. of State ex rel. Wright v. Byer, 200......
-
Jones v. Jones
...there is no question that this is neither an intestate succession nor a custody determination, see Helton v. Beaman , 304 Mich.App. 97, 135, 850 N.W.2d 515 (2014) ( Sawyer , P.J., dissenting) ("[T]his is only a revocation-of-paternity case and not a child custody case."). Indeed, the child'......