OSCAR PICKERING V JULIE ALLORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
OSCAR PICKERING,
UNPUBLISHED
April 1, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 243836
Bay Circuit Court
LC No. 02-007326-DC
JULIE ALLORE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this action to establish paternity and legal custody of a minor child, plaintiff Oscar
Pickering appeals as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of
defendant Julie Allore on the basis of plaintiff’s lack of standing. We affirm.
Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that “the Michigan Paternity Act1 violates fathers’
rights to equal protection.” We disagree.
In his brief on appeal, plaintiff acknowledges that he lacks standing to pursue paternity.
See, generally, Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231; 470 NW2d 372 (1991), and Spielmaker v
Lee, 205 Mich App 51; 517 NW2d 558 (1994). Plaintiff also acknowledges that this Court has
found no equal protection violation related to a putative father’s lack of standing to bring an
action under the Paternity Act, citing Hauser v Reilly, 212 Mich App 184; 536 NW2d 865
(1995), and McHone v Sosnowski, 239 Mich App 674; 609 NW2d 844 (2000). However,
plaintiff contends that the circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from Hauser and
McHone. As best we understand his argument, plaintiff contends that he should be permitted to
maintain this action because the distinguishing factor, which he asserts to be that after
conceiving this child with him, defendant secretly married another man and cut off plaintiff’s
standing to pursue paternity, somehow prevents application of Hauser and McHone. Plaintiff
then attempts to demonstrate that the Paternity Act violates equal protection.
1
MCL 722.711 et seq.
-1-
Plaintiff’s construction of the facts of this case causes a result that is no different than
ones that occur generally when the case law regarding standing in paternity cases is applied to
putative fathers similarly situated to plaintiff. Rather than distinguishing his case, plaintiff’s
argument raises many of the same objections that result from finding that putative fathers like
plaintiff are without standing to maintain a paternity suit. These objections are an attack on the
public policy that the Paternity Act has established. As we observed in Hauser, supra, policy
concerns are for the Legislature. Id. at 191.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
