Opinion
Docket No. 148094. COA No. 314970.
2014-02-21
In re E.R. MOILES, Minor.
Prior report: 303 Mich.App. 59, 840 N.W.2d 790.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding the sufficiency of the parties' affidavit under the Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1431 et seq. Under the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act, MCL 722.1001 et seq. , an acknowledging father is not required to attest that he is the biological father. Thus, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the parties' knowledge of the possibility that respondent was not the biological father of the child was sufficient to demonstrate either fraud or misrepresentation under MCL 722.1437(2). The circuit court similarly erred when, in partial reliance on the DNA identification profiling results, it granted the petition for revocation of the acknowledgment of parentage. We also VACATE that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding the applicability of MCL 722.1443(4) to an action for revocation of an acknowledgment of parentage. Because the parties' affidavit did not meet the requirements of MCL 722.1437(2), the Court of Appeals erred in addressing the applicability of MCL 722.1443(4). We REMAND this case to the Mecosta Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.