Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order denying W.C.'s petition to adjudicate paternity and seeking related parental responsibilities and child support. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by quashing discovery of financial and medical records because W.C. failed to show the discovery would enable him to satisfy the statutory requirements for challenging the presumed father's parentage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by quashing W.C.'s requests for financial and medical discovery in a late proceeding to adjudicate parentage against a presumed father.
- Whether W.C. established the statutory requirements for maintaining a proceeding more than two years after the child's birth to disprove the presumed father-child relationship.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing W.C.'s requested financial and medical discovery because W.C. failed to show the records were relevant to, or could have changed the outcome of, his effort to disprove the presumed father-child relationship.
- Because W.C. filed the proceeding more than two years after the child's birth, he was required to prove both statutory conditions for a late challenge to presumed paternity, and he failed to disprove the presumed father-child relationship.
Key quotations
“An abuse of discretion by the district court is never assumed, and the burden of proof is on the party seeking relief to establish it.” (930 N.W.2d at 183)
“Because the presumed parenting claim was presented later than two years after the birth of the child W.C. must prove J.H. and T.H. did not cohabitate nor engage in sexual intercourse at the probable time of conception and T.H. did not openly hold the child out as his own.” (930 N.W.2d at 184)
Factual background
W.C. alleged he was the father of a child born to J.H. in November 2013. Because J.H. gave birth within 300 days after her divorce from T.H., T.H. was the presumed father under North Dakota law. W.C. filed his paternity action in 2018, after the ordinary two-year limitations period, and sought financial and medical records to challenge T.H.'s presumed-father status. Evidence showed T.H. had been present at the child's birth, held the child out as his own, participated in family activities, and provided for the child's medical needs.
Procedural history
W.C. commenced a paternity action in 2018 concerning a child born in November 2013. The district court granted J.H.'s motion to quash discovery, conducted an evidentiary hearing, found W.C. failed to disprove the presumed father-child relationship and failed to establish the statutory circumstances permitting a late challenge, and denied the petition. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.