BRANDI WALKER V THOMAS WALKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BRANDI WALKER,
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 221515
Otsego Circuit Court
LC No. 98-007780-DS
THOMAS WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON REMAND
Before: Saad, P.J., and Kelly and Donofrio, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This Court reversed the family court’s order that required defendant to pay confinement
and childbirth expenses of $13,029.90 in this paternity action. The Supreme Court vacated that
decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Rose v Stokely, 258 Mich App 283; 673
NW2d 413 (2003). We affirm the order of the family court.
MCL 722.712(1) provides in part:
The parents of a child born out of wedlock are liable for the necessary
support and education of the child. They are also liable for the child’s funeral
expenses. The father is liable to pay the expenses of the mother’s confinement,
and is also liable to pay expenses in connection with her pregnancy as the court in
its discretion may deem proper.
In Thompson v Merritt, 192 Mich App 412; 481 NW2d 735 (1991), this Court found that
this section of the Paternity Act did not violate equal protection because it gave the court the
power to apportion costs between the parents. In the original opinion in this case, the Court
relied on Thompson to reverse the family court order.
In Rose, supra, this Court convened a conflict panel based on a disagreement with the
holding of Thompson. The conflict panel found that the language of the statute does not grant
the circuit court the discretion to apportion confinement expenses between the mother and the
father of a child born out of wedlock. 258 Mich App at 291. The conflict panel also held that
the requirement that the father be liable for necessary confinement expenses of the mother
before, during, and after the birth of the child is substantially related to an important
governmental objective, and the provisions are constitutionally permissible. Id., 317.
-1-
Therefore, under Rose, the family court properly required defendant to pay all of the
confinement and childbirth expenses. Defendant argued, in the alternative, that the requirement
that the father pay all confinement expenses violated the equal protection clause of the state and
federal constitutions, or, that the trial court erred when it failed to consider the best interests of
the child and the financial status of the parties in apportioning costs. Both of these arguments
were rejected in Rose. The Paternity Act requires the father to pay the expenses of the mother’s
confinement and expenses in connection with her pregnancy, as the court in its discretion may
deem proper. There is no showing that the family court abused its discretion by requiring
defendant to pay the child’s hospitalization and medical expenses incurred in connection with the
mother’s pregnancy.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Patrick M. Donofrio
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
