Summary
In Faske v Bonanno, 137 Mich. App. 202; 357 N.W.2d 860 (1984), a paternity case, the defendant claimed that it was unjust to order him to pay child support because the plaintiff fraudulently represented that she was using birth control pills when she, in fact, was not using them.
Summary of this case from Beard v. SkipperOpinion
Docket No. 74210.
Decided September 5, 1984.
J. Robert Rock for plaintiff.
Margaret Barton for defendant.
Before: V.J. BRENNAN, P.J., and ALLEN and GRIBBS, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from an order of paternity entered September 20, 1983, following a bench trial held on plaintiff's action under the Michigan Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq.; MSA 25.491 et seq. Blood tests admitted on stipulation of the parties showed a 99.8% probability that the defendant was the child's father.
Defendant does not seriously contest the finding of paternity but claims that it is unjust to order support when the plaintiff fraudulently represented that she was taking birth control pills, when she in fact was not taking them. Therefore, defendant argues, plaintiff should not be allowed to advance her fraud by placing the financial burden on the defendant.
No Michigan decision has ruled on this issue. However, other jurisdictions have resolved the issue against defendant. Stephen K v Roni L, 105 Cal.App.3d 640; 164 Cal.Rptr. 618 (1980); Hughes v Hutt, 500 Pa. 209; 455 A.2d 623 (1983); L Pamela P v Frank S, 59 N.Y.2d 1; 462 N.Y.S.2d 819; 449 N.E.2d 713 (1983). We see no reason why Michigan should rule differently.
Fraud or misrepresentation as to contraceptive protection by the mother should not be a defense under Michigan's Paternity Act. Parents have an obligation to support their children and the circumstances of a child's conception do not give rise to an exception to that rule. A parent cannot, merely by virtue of being the parent, waive, release, or compromise a child's claim in a paternity action. Tuer v Niedoliwka, 92 Mich. App. 694, 698-699; 285 N.W.2d 424 (1979). Since a child may not suffer for a parent's release of the child's claim, neither should the child suffer from one of the parents' "fault" regarding the conception.
Affirmed.