Sinicropi v. Mazurek

• Decision Date: 07 December 2006
• Docket Number: Docket No. 268000.
• Citation: 273 Mich. App. 149,729 N.W.2d 256
• Parties: Gregory G. SINICROPI, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Holly V. MAZUREK, Defendant-Appellant, and Martin A. Powers, Intervening Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

729 N.W.2d 256

273 Mich. App. 149

Gregory G. SINICROPI, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Holly V. MAZUREK, Defendant-Appellant, and Martin A. Powers, Intervening Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Docket No. 268000.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted November 8, 2006, at Lansing.

Decided December 7, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication March 14, 2007.

Vicki L. Armstrong and Melissa G. Leckie, Lansing, for Gregory G. Sinicropi.

Anne Argiroff, Grosse Pointe Park, for Holly V. Mazurek.

Elizabeth Warner, Jackson, for Martin A. Powers.

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and METER and DAVIS, JJ.

MURPHY, P.J.

Each of the three parties has filed an appeal in this litigation that involves issues regarding custody of a seven-year-old boy born to Holly Mazurek: paternity, an order of filiation, an acknowledgment of parentage and attempted revocation thereof, equitable parenthood, the constitutional rights of a biological father, standing, statutory construction, child support, and various other legal matters. The trial court effectively ruled that the child has, simultaneously, two legally recognized fathers. The trial court awarded Martin Powers, who executed an acknowledgment of parentage with Mazurek but who is not the child's biological father, sole physical custody of the minor child, while also entering an order of filiation in favor of Gregory Sinicropi, who is the child's biological father. The trial court rejected attempts to have the acknowledgment of parentage revoked. Mazurek, but not Sinicropi, was awarded parenting time, and both Mazurek and Sinicropi were ordered to pay child support. We hold that an order of filiation cannot be entered under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq., if, under the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1001 et seq., a proper acknowledgment of parentage was previously executed and has not been revoked. This is because, under MCL 722.1003 and MCL 722.1004, an unrevoked acknowledgment already legally established paternity and conferred the status of natural and legal father on the man executing the acknowledgment, which in turn entitled him to seek custody or parenting time if desired and obligated him to pay support if appropriate. Accordingly, the trial court erred by ruling that the child has two legally recognized fathers under both the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act and the Paternity Act. The case is remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this opinion and further reflection on the issue of revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage.

I. Basic Facts and Procedural History

This case concerns a child who was born out of wedlock in 1999 to Mazurek while she was in a relationship with Powers, but Sinicropi is the biological father of the child as established by DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing. Mazurek had dated Powers, then briefly dated Sinicropi, before subsequently resuming her relationship with Powers, during which time the child was born. Powers, along with Mazurek, executed an acknowledgment of parentage on the child's birth. None of the parties was aware that Sinicropi was the biological father until 2004, when the DNA testing was conducted following Mazurek's suspicion that Sinicropi might be the father given the child's developing physical characteristics and appearance. Meanwhile, Powers raised the child as his own with Mazurek.

Powers and Mazurek again split up in 2001, and Powers filed a custody action against Mazurek when the relationship ended. They immediately stipulated the entry of a consent order giving them joint legal and physical custody. In 2004, Powers sought sole custody after Mazurek moved out of Jackson, Michigan, where Powers, Mazurek, and the child had resided since the child's birth, to live with her new fiancé in Shepherd, Michigan. An ex parte order was entered granting Powers sole custody pending an evidentiary hearing. The trial court refused to dismiss Powers's custody action and to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage as requested by Mazurek on multiple occasions, not because of a failure to show that Sinicropi was the biological father, but because it would be inequitable and because res judicata and collateral estoppel arising out of the consent order of joint custody would not allow it.

The trial court eventually converted the ex parte custody order into a temporary order, scheduling a full evidentiary hearing on issues of custody and parenting time. Thereafter, Sinicropi filed a paternity action under the Paternity Act. Subsequently, the trial court, after consolidating the paternity and custody cases, entered an order of filiation that recognized Sinicropi as the child's father, yet the acknowledgment of parentage was not revoked. At this stage in the proceedings, the young boy was five years old. The trial court had rejected Powers's argument that Sinicropi lacked standing to file a paternity action, and it similarly rejected renewed efforts to have Powers's custody action dismissed for lack of standing and to have the acknowledgement of parentage revoked. The trial court effectively ruled that the child had two legal fathers under the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act and the Paternity Act.

Following a best-interests evidentiary hearing on custody, the trial court awarded sole physical custody of the child to Powers, awarded Powers and Mazurek joint legal custody, and awarded Mazurek parenting time. The trial court reserved ruling on parenting time for Sinicropi and on the issue of child support. In response to postjudgment motions filed by Mazurek and Sinicropi, the trial court concluded that it should have conducted a best-interests analysis with respect to Sinicropi and custody, but the court otherwise rejected Mazurek's and Sinicropi's attack on the judgment. The trial court reviewed the child custody factors and in a separate opinion decided that it would not be in the child's best interests to award shared custody to Sinicropi. Subsequently, Mazurek and Sinicropi were both ordered to pay child support. All three parties now appeal, presenting various arguments.

II. Standards of Review

This case requires us to address issues of statutory construction, constitutional law, and, in general, questions of law, all of which are reviewed de novo on appeal. Feyz v. Mercy Mem. Hosp., 475 Mich. 663, 672, 719 N.W.2d 1 (2006); Wayne Co. v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 455, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004); Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc., 470 Mich. 460, 463, 683 N.W.2d 587 (2004).

We shall also examine the trial court's child custody determination for purposes of judicial expediency given the possibility that the court will again decline to revoke the acknowledgment of parentage. There are three different standards of review applicable to child custody cases. The trial court's factual findings on matters such as the established custodial environment and the best-interests factors are reviewed under the great weight of the evidence standard and will be affirmed "`unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction.'" Vodvarka v. Grasmeyer, 259 Mich.App. 499, 507, 675 N.W.2d 847 (2003) (citation omitted); Fletcher v. Fletcher, 229 Mich.App. 19, 24, 581 N.W.2d 11 (1998), citing MCL 722.28. In reviewing the findings, this Court defers to the trial court's determination of credibility. Mogle v. Scriver, 241 Mich.App. 192, 201, 614 N.W.2d 696 (2000). A trial court's discretionary rulings, such as the court's determination on the issue of custody, are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich.App. 1, 5, 634 N.W.2d 363 (2001). Further, pursuant to MCL 722.28, questions of law in custody cases are reviewed for clear legal error. See Fletcher, supra at 24, 581 N.W.2d 11.

III. Governing Principles of Statutory Construction

In Paige v. City of Sterling Hts., 476 Mich. 495, 504, 720 N.W.2d 219 (2006), our Supreme Court, quoting Reed v. Yackell, 473 Mich. 520, 528-529, 703 N.W.2d 1 (2005), reiterated the recognized and controlling principles of statutory construction, stating:

"Our fundamental obligation when interpreting statutes is `to ascertain the legislative intent that may reasonably be inferred from the words expressed in the statute.' Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 466 Mich. 304, 312, 645 N.W.2d 34 (2002). If the statute is unambiguous, judicial construction is neither required nor permitted. In other words, `[b]ecause the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and not write the law, courts simply lack authority to venture beyond the unambiguous text of a statute.'" Id. [Alteration in original.]

This Court gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in the statute. Shinholster v. Annapolis Hosp., 471 Mich. 540, 549, 685 N.W.2d 275 (2004). We must consider both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme. Id. This Court must avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or nugatory. Bageris v. Brandon Twp., 264 Mich.App. 156, 162, 691 N.W.2d 459 (2004). "A necessary corollary of these principles is that a court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself." Roberts v Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 466 Mich. 57, 63, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002).

Our analysis involves examination of the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act, the Paternity Act, and the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq., along with consideration of the interaction or interrelationship between the acts. These three acts must be read in pari materia. Aichele v. Hodge, 259 Mich.App. 146, 161, 673 N.W.2d 452 (2003). Statutes in pari materia are those sharing a common purpose or those that relate to the same subject. State Treasurer v. Schuster, 456 Mich. 408, 417, 572 N.W.2d 628 (1998); Crawford Co. v. Secretary of State, 160 Mich.App. 88, 95, 408 N.W.2d 112 (1987). Statutes in pari...