Tyler F. v. Sara P.

306 Neb. 397 (2020) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · July 10, 2020 · No. Nos. S-19-513, S-19-514

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether a signed acknowledgment of paternity could be disregarded after genetic testing excluded the acknowledged father as the biological father. The court held that the acknowledgment legally established paternity and had to be set aside on statutory grounds before another individual’s paternity could be considered. It affirmed the denial of the challenge to the acknowledgment, reversed the joint custody award involving the acknowledged father, biological father, and mother, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. A properly executed, voluntary, and unrescinded acknowledgment of paternity becomes a legal finding of paternity after the statutory rescission period expires and gives the acknowledged father the legal status and parental rights of a parent, regardless of later genetic-test results.
  2. Later DNA testing showing that the acknowledged father is not the biological father is insufficient by itself to set aside a properly executed acknowledgment of paternity.
  3. A previous paternity determination, including a properly executed and undisturbed acknowledgment of paternity, must be set aside before a third party's paternity may be considered.
  4. Sara failed to prove that Tyler's acknowledgment resulted from fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, so the district court properly denied her request to set it aside.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court committed plain error by considering Geoffrey's paternity complaint without first setting aside Tyler's properly executed acknowledgment of paternity.
  2. Whether Sara established fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact sufficient to set aside Tyler's acknowledgment of paternity.
  3. Whether Nebraska law permits simultaneous legal paternity determinations for more than one father.
  4. Whether the district court's award of joint legal and physical custody to Sara, Tyler, and Geoffrey could stand after the court failed to give legal effect to Tyler's acknowledgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (14)

  • State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019)(followed)
  • Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76, 907 N.W.2d 275 (2018)(followed)
  • In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872, 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019)(followed)
  • Osantowski v. Osantowski, 298 Neb. 339, 904 N.W.2d 251 (2017)(followed)
  • Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485, 915 N.W.2d 71 (2018)(followed)
  • In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917, 883 N.W.2d 22 (2016)(followed)
  • Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979, 800 N.W.2d 249 (2011)(followed)
  • State on behalf of B.M. v. Brian F., 288 Neb. 106, 846 N.W.2d 257 (2014)(followed)
  • Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015)(acknowledged)
  • Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 2007)(persuasive analogy)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…