In Re KH
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
We granted leave to appeal in this case to determine whether our court rules, MCR 5.900 et seq.,1 allow a biological father to request a paternity determination during a child protective proceeding in which the subject children have a legal father. We hold that our court rules do not permit a biological father to participate in a child protective proceeding where a legal father exists. Indeed, where a legal father exists, a biological father cannot properly be considered even a putative father.
Under Michigan law, a presumption of legitimacy attaches to a child bom or conceived dining an…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lee v. MacOmb County Board of CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- CAM Construction v. Lake Edgewood Condominium Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Girard v. WagenmakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Bunda v. HardwickMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- Walsh v. TaylorMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-BeyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. OrrMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
- Cox v. Eric J. Hartman, M.D., & Blue Water Obstetrics & Gynecology Prof'l Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2017
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.