## Facts

- Matthew Dubay and Lauren Wells had a consensual sexual relationship beginning in 2004.
- Dubay alleged he told Wells he did not want to become a father; Wells allegedly said she was infertile and using contraception.
- Wells later told Dubay she was pregnant; she carried the pregnancy to term, and a child was born in 2005.
- After the birth, the Saginaw County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office brought a paternity action under the Michigan Paternity Act seeking a filiation judgment and child support, among other relief.
- A state court declined to stay the paternity proceedings and ultimately entered a child-support award against Dubay.
- Dubay filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Michigan’s paternity and child-support statutes violated Equal Protection by imposing support obligations on men in circumstances where women may avoid parenthood through abortion.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan’s paternity and child-support statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause by requiring a biological father to pay child support despite his stated desire to avoid parenthood and alleged deception about contraception/fertility.
2. Whether the challenged scheme triggers heightened scrutiny (sex classification or fundamental right) or is reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to defendants after dismissing the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Decision

- Affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state an Equal Protection claim.
- Held rational-basis review applied because the statutory scheme did not create an unconstitutional sex-based classification and did not infringe a fundamental right to avoid child-support obligations.
- Concluded Michigan’s interest in ensuring children are supported by their parents (and not the public) rationally supports imposing child-support duties on biological parents once a child is born.
- Treated the mother’s alleged misrepresentations as private conduct that did not render the state statutes unconstitutional under Equal Protection.
- Affirmed the district court’s attorney’s fees award; declined to award additional fees or costs for the appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Protection does not require that men be given a unilateral constitutional option to avoid legal and financial parenthood comparable to a woman’s abortion decision.
- Once a child is born, a state may impose child-support obligations on biological mothers and fathers alike to protect child welfare and reduce public financial burdens.
- Alleged deception by a private party does not convert generally applicable paternity and support statutes into unconstitutional state action or an invidious classification.
- Where no suspect classification or fundamental right is implicated, paternity and child-support statutes are evaluated under rational-basis review and are upheld if rationally related to legitimate state interests.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Michigan’s paternity and child-support scheme against an Equal Protection challenge seeking a “financial abortion,” holding that post-birth support obligations for biological parents are rationally related to legitimate state interests and do not create unconstitutional sex discrimination, and it affirmed the related attorney’s fees award.


Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2007)