M.M. v. T-M.M.; In re N.M.; M.M., Appellant

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of M.M.'s Superior Court Domestic Relations Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a paternity and child-support order. Although DNA testing later established that M.M. was not the child's biological father, the court held that he had voluntarily acknowledged paternity and waited twelve years to seek relief, making the motion untimely and inequitable. The court concluded that M.M. remained responsible for the child's support.

Holdings

1. A Rule 60(b) motion challenging a paternity and child-support judgment must be filed within a reasonable time, and a twelve-year delay was unreasonable under the circumstances presented.
2. A person who voluntarily acknowledges paternity assumes the status of legal father under District of Columbia law and may remain responsible for child support despite later genetic testing showing that he is not the biological father, when equitable relief is denied because of an unreasonable delay.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying as untimely M.M.'s Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) motion to vacate a paternity and child-support order more than twelve years after the paternity judgment.
2. Whether the equities, including M.M.'s voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and the mother's death during the delay, justified maintaining his legal-father and child-support obligations despite DNA evidence excluding biological paternity.

Disposition

affirmed