Legal Opinion

In Re KH

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 14, 2004No. Docket 122666PublishedCited by 54 opinions

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

  1. Lee v. MacOmb County Board of CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country ClubMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  3. CAM Construction v. Lake Edgewood Condominium Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Girard v. WagenmakerMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Bunda v. HardwickMichigan Supreme Court · 1965

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Walsh v. TaylorMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. People of Michigan v. Dawn Marie Dixon-BeyMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  4. People v. OrrMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API