We are thrilled to share a major victory for survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation in Michigan!
In a crucial decision issued on October 16, 2026—Blackman v. Millward (Docket No. 367240)—the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) provided vital guidance on the Revocation of Parentage Act (ROPA), MCL 722.1445(2). The Court affirmed that psychological manipulation and grooming negate free will and consent, allowing survivors to revoke an abuser's legal parentage even when physical force or active statutory authority is absent at the exact moment of conception.
This win is the result of years of extraordinary dedication, hard work, and brilliant advocacy by the Crime Victim’s Legal Assistance Project’s Fiona Redmond, Anna Moss, and Emily Miller, and MPLP’s former family law attorney Megan Reynolds. Their tireless effort on behalf of their client has created a powerful roadmap for legal aid attorneys and survivors across the state.
Because this decision addresses critical issues regarding grooming and consent under ROPA, our team hopes the Court of Appeals will grant a request to publish the opinion so it can officially serve as binding precedent statewide.
Case Summary & Key Takeaways
1. Plain-Language Standard for "Nonconsensual"
While ROPA cross-references Michigan's Penal Code (MCL 750.520a) to define "sexual penetration," it leaves the term "nonconsensual" undefined. The Court soundly rejected the defense's argument that "nonconsensual" requires conduct meeting specific criminal statutory elements for Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC). Instead, the Court applied a plain-meaning standard: "not agreed to willingly by all people involved."
2. Grooming & Psychological Manipulation Negate Free Will
Relying heavily on expert psychological testimony regarding the dynamics of grooming, the Court held that extensive psychological manipulation deprives a victim of the free will required to give true consent. As a result, sexual penetration resulting from such manipulation is legally nonconsensual under ROPA.
3. Grooming Dynamics Persist Beyond Age and Formal Authority
The opinion establishes that the traumatic impact of grooming does not magically end simply because a perpetrator resigns from a formal position of authority or because a survivor reaches a specific age threshold. The exact date of conception is not dispositive when the perpetrator continues to exert psychological influence and leverage the survivor's vulnerability.
Factual & Procedural Background
The case stems from an abusive dynamic between a high school teacher (Defendant) and a vulnerable adolescent student (Plaintiff). The Defendant was subsequently convicted of multiple counts of CSC-III, witness intimidation, and related offenses.
Conception occurred shortly after the Defendant resigned from his teaching position while under criminal investigation. Re-contacting the Plaintiff, he exploited her isolation and lack of support to coerce her into recanting her statements to law enforcement.
Plaintiff later filed a petition under ROPA, MCL 722.1445(2), to revoke the Defendant’s Affidavit of Parentage (AOP). This statute permits mothers to terminate the parental rights of an assailant upon clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived as a result of nonconsensual sexual penetration.
On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing featuring expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Jeglic. Dr. Jeglic detailed how grooming creates deep psychological control that prevents free consent and persists far past formal resignations. The trial court found the Plaintiff’s experience to be a textbook case of abuse and revoked the Defendant's AOP.
Court of Appeals Analysis & Holding
- Alignment with the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act (RSCCA): The Court emphasized that Michigan’s 2016 ROPA amendments aligned state law with the federal RSCCA (34 USC 21301 et seq.), serving a compelling state interest in protecting survivors and children from ongoing trauma.
- Distinguishing Criminal Precedent (People v. Hoffman): The Defendant argued that under criminal case law, his authority ended upon resignation, rendering subsequent sexual activity lawful. The Court firmly rejected this argument, clarifying that criminal statutory definitions do not dictate the evidentiary standard under civil ROPA proceedings.
- Evidentiary Rulings: The COA affirmed the trial court's exclusion of irrelevant post-conception defense exhibits and unauthenticated hearsay records.
Why This Matters for Legal Aid & Survivor Representation
Blackman v. Millward is a profound victory for survivors of institutional and power-imbalanced abuse. It provides persuasive authority and a compelling framework for legal aid attorneys handling ROPA and paternity revocation matters where sexual assault or coercion was facilitated by emotional manipulation, grooming, or power imbalances—even without physical force, explicit threats, or active statutory authority at the moment of conception.
We extend our deepest gratitude and congratulations to Fiona, Anna, Emily, and Megan for their relentless advocacy and for securing an impactful decision that will help protect survivors and their children for years to come!