New York Family Law Blog
In matters of family law, the presumption that a child born during a marriage is the biological child of the married couple has long been a central issue in paternity disputes. This presumption can be rebutted, but it requires clear and convincing evidence. In a recent case before the Queens County Supreme Court, the court examined the plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the presumption of legitimacy and request a DNA test to determine paternity.
Background Facts
The case involved a married couple, the plaintiff and the defendant, who had a child together in 2019. In 2022, three years after the child was born, the plaintiff filed a verified complaint seeking custody of the child. The complaint did not initially raise any issue regarding the child’s paternity, nor did it contain any request for a paternity test. Instead, the plaintiff acknowledged the child as being born of the marriage.
The plaintiff, however, did allege that the defendant had engaged in adultery during their marriage, but there were no allegations that the adultery occurred before the child was conceived or that the child was the result of an extramarital affair. The first time the plaintiff questioned the child’s paternity was during a preliminary conference in the case, where the issue was raised as unresolved. However, no motion was filed at that time to request a paternity test. It was not until March 2023, four years after the child’s birth, that the plaintiff formally filed a paternity petition, asking the court to order a DNA test to determine the child’s biological father.
Question Before the Court
Whether the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the child born during the marriage was the biological product of the union. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations and evidence were enough to warrant ordering a DNA test.
Court’s Decision
The Queens County Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a paternity test. In its decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. The court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were speculative, and there was no evidence to suggest that the child was not the biological product of the marriage.
Discussion
Under New York law, a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the biological child of the married couple. This presumption is considered one of the strongest in the law, and it can only be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence. The courts have long held that mere allegations of adultery or non-paternity are not enough to overcome this presumption. Instead, the challenging party must provide evidence that excludes the husband as the father or otherwise discredits the legitimacy of the child.
In this case, the plaintiff’s argument centered on the fact that the defendant had allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair. However, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that the affair resulted in the conception of the child. Furthermore, the plaintiff had acknowledged in earlier filings that he had access to the defendant during the relevant time period and that he had sexual relations with her. This further weakened the plaintiff’s case, as it suggested that there was no clear reason to doubt the child’s paternity.
The court also considered the issue of equitable estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a claim if it would harm another party who has relied on the initial representation. In family law cases, equitable estoppel can be used to prevent a person from denying paternity if they have previously represented themselves as the child’s parent and the child has relied on that relationship. Although the court did not apply equitable estoppel in this case, it noted that the plaintiff’s delay in raising the issue of paternity could have implications for the child’s well-being and the parent-child relationship.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that adultery alone was enough to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. Under New York law, the fact that a spouse has committed adultery does not automatically disprove paternity. The courts have held that as long as the husband and wife are living together during the time of conception, and the husband had access to the wife, the presumption remains in place unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
In addition, the court pointed out that the plaintiff’s delay in filing the paternity petition raised concerns about the motive behind the request for a DNA test. The fact that the plaintiff had waited four years after the child’s birth to challenge paternity suggested that the request was not based on new evidence or developments, but rather on speculation and conjecture.
Conclusion
The case demonstrates the difficulty of overcoming the presumption of legitimacy in paternity disputes. Courts are hesitant to grant requests for paternity tests unless there is clear and convincing evidence that casts doubt on the child’s legitimacy. In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet that burden. As a result, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a paternity test and maintained the presumption that the child was born of the marriage.
If you have questions about paternity, the experienced Queens paternity lawyers at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help guide you through the legal process and help protect your rights. Contact us today.