New York Family Law Blog
In proceedings under Family Court Act articles 5 and 6, several orders issued by the Family Court of Suffolk County were contested. These orders pertained to issues surrounding paternity, acknowledgment of paternity, and parental access to a child. In a relatively unusual move, the court vacated an acknowledgement of paternity.
In New York, the court may vacate an acknowledgment of paternity under specific circumstances, typically when there is evidence that the acknowledgment was obtained through fraud, duress, or mistake of fact.
Firstly, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the acknowledgment was obtained through fraud, the court may intervene to vacate it. Fraudulent circumstances could include misrepresentation of paternity by one of the parties involved, such as if the individual signing the acknowledgment knew they were not the biological parent but falsely claimed to be.
Secondly, if the acknowledgment was signed under duress, meaning it was obtained through coercion or threats, the court may also consider vacating it. For instance, if one party pressured the other into signing the acknowledgment by threatening to withhold visitation rights or financial support, the acknowledgment may be deemed invalid.
Moreover, if there is evidence of a mistake of fact regarding paternity, the court may vacate the acknowledgment. This could occur if new evidence emerges, such as DNA test results, which conclusively prove that the individual acknowledged as the father is not biologically related to the child.
Additionally, if the acknowledgment is found to be not in the best interests of the child, the court may decide to vacate it. This could happen if maintaining the acknowledgment would not serve the child’s welfare or if circumstances have changed since the acknowledgment was made, making it no longer appropriate.
Overall, the court’s decision to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity in New York depends on the specific circumstances of each case and whether vacating the acknowledgment aligns with the child’s best interests and the principles of justice and equity.
Background Facts
In Escobar v. Pagan, the child was born in September 2013 to Milagros P. (referred to as the mother). Initially, an acknowledgment of paternity was signed on September 13, 2013, by the mother and John P. Escobar, indicating Escobar as the child’s father. However, Milagros P. was also involved in an intimate relationship with Michael M., and a subsequent private DNA test revealed Michael to be the biological father. Despite the acknowledgment, Michael voluntarily provided financial support to the child, contributing $600 monthly, and maintained regular visitation rights.
In 2019, Escobar initiated legal proceedings seeking parental access to the child. Simultaneously, Michael pursued a paternity proceeding to establish himself as the child’s legal father. Following a court-ordered genetic marker testing, which confirmed Michael’s paternity, the Family Court issued several consequential orders. These orders included adjudicating Michael as the child’s father, vacating the acknowledgment of paternity signed by Escobar, and dismissing Escobar’s petition for parental access due to lack of standing. Escobar appealed.
Issue
The primary issue revolved around the validity of the acknowledgment of paternity, the determination of paternity, and the standing of Escobar in seeking parental access.
Holding
The orders issued by the Family Court, including the adjudication of Michael as the child’s father, the vacating of the acknowledgment of paternity, and the dismissal of Escobar’s petition for parental access, were affirmed.
Rationale
Equitable estoppel, which might have precluded Michael’s claim to paternity, was found inapplicable due to the child’s best interests. The court recognized the existing relationship between Michael and the child, along with Michael’s consistent financial support and visitation rights, as factors favoring his recognition as the child’s legal father.
Moreover, the court determined that Michael had standing to seek adjudication as the child’s legal father, notwithstanding the prior acknowledgment of paternity signed by Escobar. This decision was based on the provisions of Family Court Act § 522, which grants standing to individuals seeking to establish or disprove paternity.
Additionally, the court exercised its authority to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity signed by Escobar, as it was rendered invalid by the subsequent determination of Michael’s paternity. Lastly, Escobar’s petition for parental access was rightfully dismissed due to his lack of standing as a nonparent, as no extraordinary circumstances were established to grant him such rights.
Conclusion
In navigating complex family law matters like paternity, acknowledgment, and parental rights, seeking the guidance of a knowledgeable New York paternity lawyer is of utmost importance. If you’re facing similar issues, don’t hesitate to reach out to Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your case. With over two decades of experience representing clients in paternity and child custody matters, we have the knowledge and resources to help ensure that your legal rights are protected.