Pueblo v. Haas

1

CARRIE PUEBLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RACHEL HAAS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. SC 164046

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 24, 2023

Syllabus

Argued April 4, 2023 (Calendar No. 3).

Carrie Pueblo brought an action against her former domestic partner Rachel Haas, in the Kalamazoo Circuit Court under the Child Custody Act (CCA), MCL 722.21 et seq., seeking joint custody and parenting time for a child whom defendant conceived through in vitro fertilization and gave birth to in 2008, during the parties' relationship. Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(5) and MCR 2.116(C)(8), asserting that because the parties had never married and plaintiff had no biological or adoptive relationship to the child, plaintiff lacked standing to sue and also failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Following a hearing, the trial court, Stephen D Gorsalitz, J., granted the motion and dismissed the case without prejudice. After defendant moved for reconsideration the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff then filed her own motion for reconsideration arguing that she had standing as a natural parent, despite the lack of genetic connection, following the Court of Appeals decision in LeFever v Matthews, 336 Mich.App. 651 (2021), which expanded the definition of "natural parent" to include unmarried women who gave birth as surrogates but shared no genetic connection with the children. Plaintiff also asserted that the trial court order violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, as well as those of the child. Plaintiff further argued that any dismissal should have been without prejudice. The trial court denied reconsideration distinguishing LeFever on the ground that plaintiff had not given birth to the child. Plaintiff appealed, reasserting her previous arguments and further asserting that the equitableparent doctrine should extend to the parties' relationship, which had been solemnized in a civil commitment ceremony when it was not yet legal in Michigan for same-sex partners to marry. The Court of Appeals, GADOLA, P.J., and SWARTZLE and CAMERON, JJ., rejected these arguments and affirmed the trial court in an unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued December 28, 2021 (Docket No. 357577). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, asking whether and to what extent the equitable-parent doctrine should be extended to provide standing under the CCA to plaintiff and those similarly situated in light of Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), which invalidated Michigan's prohibitions on same-sex marriage. 510 Mich. 936 (2022).

In an opinion by Justice CAVANAGH, joined by Chief Justice CLEMENT and Justices BERNSTEIN, WELCH, and BOLDEN, the Supreme Court held:

A former member of a same-sex couple seeking custody of a child to whom they did not give birth and with whom they share no genetic connection is entitled to make their case for equitable parenthood and thus establish standing to bring an action under the CCA. To do so, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties would have married before the child's conception or birth but for Michigan's unconstitutional marriage ban. When determining whether a plaintiff satisfies this standard, courts should consider the nondispositive factors set forth in In re Madrone, 271 Or.App. 116 (2015). The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court to apply this threshold test. To the extent that Lake v Putnam, 316 Mich.App. 247 (2016), was inconsistent with the Court's opinion, it was overruled.

1. Under the equitable-parent doctrine, a spouse who is not a biological parent has standing to seek custody of a child born or conceived during their marriage when (1) the would-be equitable parent and the child acknowledge the parental relationship or the biological or adoptive parent has cultivated the development of a relationship over a period of time, (2) the would-be equitable parent desires to have the rights afforded a parent, and (3) the would-be equitable parent is willing to pay child support. Before 2015, Michigan unconstitutionally prohibited same-sex couples from marrying and refused to recognize legal marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Consequently, a same-sex partner did not have the option to adopt their spouse's child or to marry their pregnant partner and benefit from the marital presumption of parentage. Further, unmarried same-sex couples were not permitted to adopt through second-parent adoption. Obergefell rendered Michigan's unconstitutional bar on same-sex marriage unenforceable, holding that the denial of the ability to marry was a denial of same-sex couples' constitutional due-process and equalprotection rights. Obergefell noted generally the importance of the various benefits that the states have connected to marriage, referred to as the "constellation of benefits," and specifically emphasized the harm that the unconstitutional prohibition on marriage caused the children of same-sex couples. Recognition of equitable parenthood is one of the "constellation of benefits" associated with marriage in Michigan, and, as a matter of equity and constitutional law, Michigan courts are compelled to treat same-sex couples equally. Accordingly, Obergefell demanded the extension of the equitable-parent doctrine to those who were unable to marry during their samesex relationships because of discriminatory and unconstitutional Michigan laws but who developed de facto parent-child relationships with the children born or adopted by their same-sex partners during the time they would have otherwise been married. This extension served the underlying rationale of the equitable-parent doctrine, which considers the best interests of the child to be paramount, and it was consistent with recent developments in the law recognizing that federal and state law protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It was not necessary to overrule Van, which involved parties who chose not to legally marry despite their ability to do so. However, it was necessary to overrule Lake, which had declined to extend the equitable-parent doctrine to same-sex couples who had previously been unable to marry, to the extent it was inconsistent with the Court's holding. Lake's concern about retroactively and unilaterally creating a marriage relationship against the parties' wishes was remedied by requiring the person seeking custody to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parties would have married had they been legally permitted to do so in Michigan. In light of the conclusion that plaintiff may pursue standing as an equitable parent, her alternative claims were not addressed.

2. A would-be equitable parent has standing if they demonstrate by the preponderance of the evidence that the parties would have married before the child's birth or conception but for the unconstitutional laws that prevented them from doing so. This approach is based on Madrone, which crafted a factual inquiry to be applied when extending the presumption of parentage in its artificial-insemination statute to same-sex partners of biological mothers. Madrone concluded that the proper focus was on whether the parties would have married but for the previous unconstitutional state prohibition on same-sex marriage, which involved a contemporaneous inquiry concerning the mutual intent of the parties. The relevant factors it concluded would support an inference that same-sex partners would have married but for the prior unconstitutional bar included whether the couple took advantage of other options giving legal recognition to their relationship, held each other out as or considered themselves to be spouses, had children during the relationship and shared childrearing responsibilities, held a commitment ceremony or otherwise exchanged vows of commitment, exchanged rings, shared a last name, commingled their assets and finances, made significant financial decisions together, sought to adopt any children either of them may have had before the relationship began, or attempted unsuccessfully to get married. The Supreme Court adopted this approach and held that in Michigan, if the intent to marry is disputed, a would-be equitable parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the couple would have married based on their contemporaneous conduct, considering the illustrative but nondispositive and nonexhaustive factors set forth in Madrone. If that threshold test for standing is satisfied, the court may evaluate the equitable-parent factors to determine whether the would-be equitable parent has standing to seek custody and parenting time.

3. Plaintiff made a sufficient showing to survive summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) on standing grounds. In particular, plaintiff's allegations that she cultivated the development of a relationship with the child over a period of time, desires to have parental rights, and is willing to pay child support are sufficient to advance her claim for equitable parenthood. Plaintiff also alleged facts entitling her to a threshold determination of whether the parties would have married but for Michigan's unconstitutional bar on same-sex marriage.

Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Justice BOLDEN, concurring, wrote separately to note that because many state laws relating to marriage, out-of-wedlock parenting, and reproductive technologies had been enacted without consideration of Obergefell, the Legislature should act to resolve the lingering puzzles that remained regarding how the current applicable statutory schemes could fit...