Born: 1976
Education: Notre Dame Law School (2001); Calvin College (1998)
Admitted to Bar: 2002
Experience: Western Michigan Legal Services (2001– present)
Legal Affiliations: Grand Rapids Bar Association, Young Lawyer’s Section; American Inns of Court
Many students begin law school knowing what area they wish to pursue, but find themselves changing their mind by their third year. Some have no idea what area they want to practice in.
Grand Rapids attorney Pamela Hoekwater, though, attended law school knowing full well what she wanted — a career in legal aid. Upon graduation, she held true to her passion.
Hoekwater, who currently works for Western Michigan Legal Services, said she intends to remain in legal aid for a long time.
With an undergraduate degree in social work and a compassionate heart, it's no wonder Hoekwater has devoted her career to helping those less fortunate.
In the process, it didn't take long for the young attorney to get involved with a significant issue in Michigan family law.
Hoekwater represented the defendant-mother in Kaiser v. Schreiber, where the defendant, who was married at the time, slept with her plaintiff-neighbor and had his child.
Under Michigan law, because the child was born into a marriage, the defendant's husband was considered the father of that child.
The plaintiff filed suit for joint legal custody, but Hoekwater won her motion for summary disposition on the basis the plaintiff lacked standing since the child already had two parents.
However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the decision, claiming the DNA tests proved the plaintiff was the actual father and, therefore, there was no need to discuss who was the presumed father since the actual father was determined.
Hoekwater appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which quickly reversed the Court of Appeals.
Q. What were the policy implications behind the Kaiser ruling?
A. The court upheld the original policy considerations taken into account when the statute was drafted. They did not want to upset a family. In this case, my client's husband had been a father to the child and he had rights, too.
Basically, what the court was saying is that, according to our laws, the husband, who became a father by status of being a husband, has rights which trump that of the biological father, because as a society, we're upholding marriages.
Essentially, the court upheld what they had said in Girard v. Wagenmaker, though in Girard there wasn't any claim of DNA testing unlike here. The Michigan Supreme Court, however, said the DNA tests would not make a difference — the kid already has a father and unless there's some kind of arrangement between the husband and wife, the husband is going to remain the father.
Q. When the MSC merely issues an order as opposed to an opinion following an appeal, which it reverses, what kind of message does the court send?
A. I honestly didn't know they did this. I read a court rule saying they could do it. I think they have a mandate that they need to expedite custody issues.
If they had read the Court of Appeals decision and thought it was clearly erroneous just by looking at it and did not need argument on it, that's probably why they acted the way they did.
The custody of a child was involved and they just wanted to take care of it quickly if they could.
Q. Please explain the legal implication of a child born out of wedlock and one born into a marriage.
A. In order to file a paternity action to get yourself named father of a child, the child has to be born out of wedlock. The definition of "born out of wedlock" would be mom not married or a court has already determined her husband is not the father of that child.
If a child is born out of wedlock and doesn't have a father, then you can jump in and say you're the father. You may file a suit to claim you're the father, the mother might sue you to have you named the father or the state might sue you to have you named the father.
The difference here is that if no court has determined that the husband is not the father, then husband is the father. You can't claim to be the father of a child who has a father. The court is not going to disrupt family units.
Q. What would happen if the husband got a divorce?
A. I am unclear what the courts would do if they got divorced and the biological father filed a motion to intervene to have himself named the father. They might determine, absent someone intervening in their divorce action, the husband can remain the father if he alleges he is the father of that child, because legally he is. If they separated, he could still get custody of that child. He is legally the parent of that child.
What could happen is they could get divorced and one or both of them could allege that the husband is not the father of that child. Then it would get adjudicated within the divorce.
But a judgment of divorce stating the husband is not the father would be the "prior judicial determination" the putative father would need in order to file a paternity action. He would just need the court to say the child doesn't have a father.
Q. Do you envision any changes that could be made in order to better allow a putative father to play a role or have a relationship with his child?
A. It's not going to happen through the court system. If putative dads are going to have more rights, it's going to have to be a change in the statute — it's something that's going to have to be addressed by the Michigan Legislature.
Q. This was a pretty significant case for any attorney, let alone a "young" lawyer.
A. I just got admitted to the bar last year. This is the first case that has gone to the Court of Appeals, as well as the Michigan Supreme Court. It was an exciting thing I got to do.
Q. What do you enjoy about handling family law issues?
A. Family law is an interesting mix of legal issues and interpersonal issues.
My undergraduate degree is in social work and I believe that helps me. If you're going into family law, it's certainly different than, say, doing landlord-tenant or consumer civil cases, which I also do. It's more fact-intensive.
Q. What does the future hold for you now?
A. I personally intend to stay in legal services — that's why I got into the practice of law. My undergrad is in social work, and I went to school intending to do legal aid work.
Subscribers Only
