Child support; Whether the trial court properly found that defendant had a duty of support; Whether he was precluded from raising the defense of non-parentage; MCL 552.2315; Whether a court in Brazil determined his parentage of the child; Uniform Child Support; Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

Holding that the record before the trial court did not establish that Brazil had determined defendant’s parentage of the child, the court vacated the trial court’s order that he pay child support and remanded. Plaintiff-mother “is an obligee residing in Brazil, and the child resides in Brazil, which is a foreign country within the meaning of the UIFSA. Articles 1 through 7 of the UIFSA apply in this case, and empowered the trial court to establish child support given that no prior child support order exists in this case.” But the trial court could only do so “upon finding, after notice and an opportunity to be heard, that defendant had a duty of support.” The issue was whether it “properly found that defendant had a duty of support before ordering defendant to pay child support.” The court noted that the “trial court found that defendant had a duty of support because defendant’s name appeared on the child’s birth certificate in Brazil.” In so determining, it accepted plaintiff’s claim “that under Brazil law, any man designated as the father on a child’s birth certificate is thereby determined by law to be the father of that child, and that defendant therefore was precluded from raising the defense of non-parentage by § 315 of the UIFSA, MCL 552.2315.” However, the court held that it erred, because it accepted plaintiff’s claim “that parentage had been established under Brazil law without proof that this had in fact occurred.” The trial court’s decision was “based exclusively on the ipse dixit of the birth certificate, without permitting defendant to challenge the parentage of the child.” Also, the record indicated “that defendant consistently sought to establish the parentage of the child and did not concede that the issue had been determined under Brazil law.”