Court of Appeals asks MSC to revisit paternity issues involving a biological father.

In Snay v Vest, ___ Mich App ___ (Unpub, #293618, 11/18/2010) the Court of Appeals asked the Michigan Supreme Court to re-visit issues relating to paternity whereby a biological father does not even have standing to pursue legal recognition of his own child if the mother was married to another man.

In Snay plaintiff is the biological father of a child he fathered with defendant. Defendant is married to another man, and was married to this other man throughout her relationship with plaintiff and her pregnancy with the child. The ‘legal father’, defendant’s husband, is not present in either defendant’s life or the child’s life, nor has he been since before the biological father and defendant’s relationship. Defendant’s utilities were shut off, and two of defendant’s older children are under the jurisdiction of the probate court through guardianship. Plaintiff biological father is requesting custody of the child because he is her biological father and because he believes that defendant is not fit to parent.

The Court of Appeals held, however, under Michigan caselaw that to bring a claim for custody, plaintiff biological father must have standing. When a child is not born out of wedlock, the mother’s husband is the legal father, and the plaintiff biological father does not have standing because he is not her ‘legal father’.  He is thereby denied standing to request custody of his biological child because of the marital status of the child’s mother.

The law that denies him standing is designed to provide for children born out of wedlock and to promote the sanctity of marriage. The facts suggest that this child is neither provided for, nor is the marriage intact. But, because there has been no court determination that the child is not the product of the marriage, the biological father cannot legally request custody of his own child, even though he is willing, and possibly better able, to parent her and provide for her.