|
No. 128374
| Charles Pitts, |
|
Maureen Martin Caster |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
vs (Genesee - Beagle, D.) |
|
|
Susan Beam, |
|
Debra F. Donlan |
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| ______________________________________ |
|
|
| |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Response Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
While Susan Beam was married to George Beam, she had a sexual relationship with Charles Pitts; she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. While the child's original birth certificate states that her last name is Pitts, the certificate identifies George Beam, who died eight days after the child's birth, as her father. Pitts asserts that for nearly two years after the child's birth, he and the child shared a close father-daughter relationship. Pitts eventually filed a paternity complaint, seeking a declaration that he was the child's father. In his complaint, Pitts represented - inaccurately - that Beam was not married when the child was conceived or born. Beam did not answer this complaint, and the court entered a default order of filiation establishing Pitts' paternity over the child. Beam moved to Pennsylvania soon after, taking the child with her. Pitts then sought custody of the child, initiating additional proceedings in Michigan courts. Beam again did not respond to the litigation, and the court entered a default order granting Pitts custody. More than a year later, Pitts located Beam and the child in Florida ; he obtained an order allowing him to take custody of the child and return her to Michigan . Beam filed a motion asking the court that issued the filiation order to rescind it. The court denied the motion, but returned the child to Beam pending an evidentiary hearing on the custody dispute. Beam appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Pitts did not have standing to seek an order of filiation because there had been no prior determination, as required by the Paternity Act, that the child was not an issue of her marriage with George Beam. She claimed that the order of filiation was void. The Court of Appeals agreed and issued a peremptory order directing the trial court to set aside the order of filiation. Pitts appeals, arguing in part that Beam failed to challenge either the filiation order or the paternity complaint within one year, as required by MCR 2.612.
Top of Page
|
