Background
Tyler David Millward began a sexual relationship with Shannon Blackman while he was a teacher at her high school. Blackman, then a vulnerable teenager without stable parental, housing, or financial support, initially resisted Millward’s sexual advances. Millward later pleaded guilty to multiple offenses arising from his conduct with her, including third-degree criminal sexual conduct and witness intimidation. Blackman subsequently became pregnant, gave birth, and executed an affidavit of parentage identifying Millward as the child’s biological father.
Blackman moved under Michigan’s Revocation of Paternity Act to revoke the affidavit and terminate Millward’s parental rights. In an earlier appeal, the Court of Appeals held that her motion was timely and that the trial court did not have to conduct a best-interests analysis, but it remanded for factual findings on whether the child was conceived through nonconsensual sexual penetration. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Millward had groomed and psychologically manipulated Blackman and that this influence continued after he resigned as a teacher and during the conception period.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that “nonconsensual” under MCL 722.1445(2) means conduct not willingly agreed to by everyone involved. Relief under the statute is not limited to conduct supporting a criminal-sexual-conduct charge or conviction. Accordingly, the fact that Millward had resigned before the child was conceived did not establish that the sexual penetration was consensual or lawful for purposes of the parentage statute.
The panel found no clear error in the trial court’s determination that Blackman’s agreement was not willing because Millward’s grooming, psychological manipulation, and influence persisted after his resignation. The trial court permissibly credited Blackman and an unrebutted expert who testified that grooming can prevent free consent and can continue affecting a victim long after a formal authority relationship ends. The appellate court also upheld the exclusion of Millward’s proposed exhibits because they concerned postconception events, contained inadmissible hearsay, lacked authentication, or were never offered for admission.
Key Takeaways
- Under MCL 722.1445(2), “nonconsensual” sexual penetration means penetration not willingly agreed to by all involved.
- A mother need not establish conduct satisfying the elements of a criminal-sexual-conduct offense or produce a criminal conviction to obtain relief under the statute.
- Grooming and psychological manipulation may support a finding of nonconsent even after the perpetrator’s formal position of authority has ended.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Michigan’s parentage-revocation remedy is broader than the criminal code and focuses on whether agreement to the sexual penetration was genuinely willing. Courts may consider the continuing effects of grooming and psychological manipulation rather than treating resignation from a position of authority or the precise conception date as dispositive.
The ruling also illustrates the importance of the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, credibility findings, and properly admitted expert evidence when a court determines whether conception resulted from nonconsensual sexual penetration.