In a paternity case, the courts may sometimes be asked to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity when new information comes to light. These cases can have significant consequences, not only for the parents involved but also for the child. Oscar X.F. v. Ileana R.H., 107 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) highlights the legal standards required to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity and the importance of considering the best interests of the child.
Background Facts
The case involved a petitioner who had signed an acknowledgment of paternity, believing he was the biological father of the child in question. The acknowledgment of paternity was executed in accordance with Family Court Act § 516–a. At the time, the petitioner was under the impression that he was the father because he had engaged in sexual relations with the mother during the relevant period.
However, it later came to light that the mother had another sexual partner during that same period. The petitioner testified that he was unaware of this at the time he signed the acknowledgment. After the petitioner learned of the other sexual partner, a DNA test was conducted, which revealed that he was not the biological father of the child. Based on this new information, the petitioner sought to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, arguing that he had signed it based on a material mistake of fact.
The Family Court, Queens County, initially dismissed the petition. The petitioner then appealed the decision, arguing that the acknowledgment of paternity should be vacated due to the mistake of fact.
Question Before the Court
Whether the petitioner had demonstrated that the acknowledgment of paternity was signed based on a material mistake of fact, and if so, whether the acknowledgment should be vacated.
Court’s Decision
The appellate court reversed the Family Court’s decision to dismiss the petition. The appellate court found that the petitioner had, in fact, demonstrated that the acknowledgment of paternity was signed based on a material mistake of fact. Specifically, the petitioner testified that he believed he was the child’s father at the time he signed the acknowledgment, but later learned through a DNA test that he was not.
The court also noted that the mother’s testimony confirmed that she had another sexual partner during the relevant period and that the petitioner was unaware of this fact. In light of this new information, the court concluded that the acknowledgment of paternity had been signed based on a material mistake of fact.
As a result, the appellate court reinstated the petition and remitted the case to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. These proceedings would include a hearing to determine whether vacating the acknowledgment of paternity would be in the child’s best interest.
Discussion
This case highlights that a party can seek to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity if they can prove that it was signed based on fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact. In this case, the petitioner’s belief that he was the child’s biological father, based on incomplete information, constituted a material mistake of fact.
The case also underscores the importance of a thorough inquiry into the best interest of the child when considering whether to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity. Even if a petitioner can prove that the acknowledgment was signed due to a mistake, the court must still consider whether vacating the acknowledgment would harm the child. This is because paternity involves not only biological considerations but also legal and emotional ones.
Conclusion
If you are involved in a paternity dispute, contact an experienced Queens paternity lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates. While DNA testing plays an important role in establishing paternity, legal determinations also involve considering the child’s best interests. Courts may take into account the child’s need for stability and continuity, especially if a presumed father has already established a significant relationship with the child. For guidance and representation in navigating the complexities of paternity cases, consult with a qualified attorney to understand how both biological evidence and the child’s welfare may impact your case.