Friday v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Services (Mississippi 2021)
A paternity action must be brought before a child turns 21. The Mississippi Department of Human Services filed to establish paternity for a child who at the time of filing was 20 years old. The father filed several motions to dismiss, arguing the child had turned 21 and the case shouldn’t proceed. The Chancery Court entered an order adjudicating the father’s paternity and ordering a year of support. The father appealed.
Read MoreIn the Matter of the Paternity of AAE, TE v. Wy. Dep’t of Family Services (Wyoming 2020)
A nonparty has no standing to participate in an action. A court can’t deny a petition to establish paternity once a genetic test is completed and the results meet the statutory threshold. The Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) filed to terminate the parental rights of the mother, the child’s presumed father, and the child’s…
Read MoreMitchell v. Moore (Mississippi 2017)
The dismissal of a paternity complaint is not a jurisdictional bar to the refiling of the complaint. In this heirship action, relatives of the deceased challenged his child’s status as his heir, arguing that the paternity order was void. The Department of Human Services filed the initial paternity complaint in 2007 and then dismissed it…
Read MoreIn re Lucius H. (Tennessee 2016)
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs commerical contracts and transactions, does not apply to paternity actions. In this case, the parent admitted paternity, but cited the UCC in support of his argument that he did not agree to the birth of the child and should not be liable for support. Once paternity is established, the…
Read MoreMills v. Habluetzel (Federal, US Supreme Court 1982)
The period for ascertaining the fatherhood of the child must be sufficiently long to permit those who have an interest in the child to bring an action on their behalf despite the personal difficulties that may surround the birth of a child outside of wedlock.
Read MoreRivera v. Minnich (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1987)
When paternity actions are brought in court, they are civil in nature. Thus the burden of proof is generally a preponderance of the evidence.
Read MoreClark v. Jeter (Federal, US Supreme Court, 1988)
The period for ascertaining the fatherhood of the child must be sufficiently long to permit those who have an interest in the child to bring an action on their behalf despite the personal difficulties that may surround the birth of a child outside of wedlock.
Read MoreIn re Marriage of Ross (Kansas 1989)
Prior to ordering a blood test to determine whether the presumed parent is the biological parent, the district court must consider the best interests of the child, including physical, mental, and emotional needs.
Read MoreIn re Paternity of JRW and KB (Wyoming 1991)
Presumed fathers are barred from contesting parentage if they do not bring actions within a reasonable time and by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel.
Read MoreIn re Adoption of RSC (Wyoming 1992)
An action to declare nonexistence of a presumptive father and child relationship until almost four years after all relevant facts are know will be time barred – not within a reasonable time.
Read MoreEllison v. Walter ex rel. Walter (Wyoming 1992)
A district court possesses the authority to issue support orders retroactive to the date of a child’s birth in paternity/support actions initiated by a state for the reimbursement of public assistance.
Read MoreIn re Paternity of SDM (Wyoming 1994)
A child who has not been included as a party in any prior paternity case nor any prior divorce action cannot be foreclosed by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or judicial estoppel with respect to the child’s subsequent effort to achieve determination of paternity.
Read MoreJA v. CJH (Wyoming 1996)
Where no timely action has been instituted within 5 years of a child’s birth to declare the nonexistence of a father and child relationship, the statutory presumption of paternity becomes absolute, and any action to establish another’s paternity is foreclosed.
Read MoreState ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Miller (Kansas 1998)
When a child is born out of wedlock and no credible evidence exists that the child has a presumed father, the trial court may order genetic testing in a paternity action without first conducting a best interest hearing (Ross hearing), which is to determine whether the testing would be in the best interests of the…
Read MoreState ex rel. Secretary of SRS v. Miller (Kansas 1998)
When a child is born out of wedlock and no credible evidence exists that the child has a presumed father, the trial court may order genetic testing in a paternity action without first conducting a best interest hearing (Ross hearing), which is to determine whether the testing would be in the best interests of the…
Read More