SCOTT VAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MARY ZAHORIK . BY: Jennifer J.

Citation:                                 460 Mich. 320; 597 N.W.2d 15; 1999 Mich. LEXIS 1868

Parties:                                   SCOTT VAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v

MARY ZAHORIK, Defendant-Appellee

                                               

Facts:                                      As of March 21, 1996, when Mr. Van started a relationship with another woman, Ms. Zahorik refused to allow Mr. Van to see the children.  However, on March 25, 1996, Ms. Zahorik filed a paternity complaint against Mr. Van in which she alleged that he was the father of both children. Ms. Zahorik apparently dismissed this action.  On July 26, 1996, Mr. Van filed a petition to establish paternity in which he alleged that he “believed and continues to believe he is the father” of the two children.  On August 22, 1996, Ms. Zahorik filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), in which she argued that Mr. Van was not the biological father of either child ¹ and could not be an “equitable parent” to them because Mr. Van and Ms. Zahorik were never married. In response, Mr. Van conceded that blood testing showed that he was not the biological father but argued that he was an “equitable parent” and that Ms. Zahorik was equitably estopped from denying that he is the father. The trial court granted Ms. Zahorik's motion for summary disposition. The trial court indicated that its ruling turned on two factors:  1) that Mr. Van apparently was not the biological father of the children, and 2) that Mr. Van and Ms. Zahorik were never married. The Court noted that Michigan's public policy favored marriage and concluded that the doctrines of equitable estoppel, equitable parenthood, and equitable adoption require marriage.

Prior Proceedings:                Plaintiff Scott Van and Defendant Mary Zahorik cohabited from 1986 to 1991 but were never married.  Mr. Van claims that he and Ms. Zahorik continued their relationship for several years after they stopped living together.  Ms. Zahorik had two children in the course of this relationship;  one in 1989 and the other in 1993.   Mr. Van alleges that Ms. Zahorik informed him that he was the father of the children.  He believes that he was named as the father on the birth certificates of both children.  He claims that he cared for and financially supported the children both during and after his relationship with Ms. Zahorik.

Issue:                                      Whether a person with a longstanding relationship to a child, but who is not a biological or legal parent of the child and not related by marriage to the child's biological parent, may pursue parental rights with the child under a theory of equitable parenthood or equitable estoppel.  

Holding:                                 We hold that because the requested extension of the equitable parent doctrine would affect the state's public policy in favor of marriage, the Legislature is clearly the appropriate entity to consider this issue.        

Reasoning:                             Under M.C.L. § 722.23;  MSA 25.312(3), a trial court is given extremely broad latitude in deciding what is in the best interest of the child. The plain language of  two provisions, in conjunction with the wording in M.C.L. § 722.26;  MSA 25.312(6), demonstrates that the Legislature fully recognized the courts of Michigan as necessary to defining the process.

Disposition:                                     The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.