Interest Of C.L.S., A Child

313 P.3d 662 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

S.V. (W) and T.V. (H) had been married a short time when a son, C.L.S., was conceived in early 2006. W also had a short, intimate relationship with T.R.S. (BF) at the same time. W filed for dissolution of marriage later in 2006, before the son was born. H and W executed a separation agreement a few days before the son's birth, which did not refer to any children or a pregnancy. The dissolution decree does not refer to any children. The birth certificate did not list a father. W and BF began dating again about three months after the son was born. Genetic testing was performed, and it excluded BF as the son's biological father. BF acted as the son's father, signed an acknowledgment of paternity, and added his name to the son's birth certificate as the son's father. W and BF had another child. They ended their relationship in the summer of 2008. BF then asked a court to grant him parental responsibilities for the son. The court awarded him some parenting time. He paid mother child support and maintained health insurance on both children. W applied for government benefits. The local child, support enforcement unit, sought an order establishing H as the son's legal father and requiring him to pay mother a regular amount to support the son. In October 2008, genetic testing established a 99.99% probability that H was the son's biological father. The Unit learned that BF had signed an acknowledgment that he was the son's father and that BF's name had been placed on the son's birth certificate. The Unit filed this case to determine the son's legal father. The magistrate found that there were competing statutory presumptions of paternity. H was presumed to be the son's legal father because he was married to W when the child was conceived and born, and genetic testing indicated that he was the son's biological father. BF was presumed to be the son's legal father because he voluntarily acknowledged that he was the son's father, and he held the son out as his child. H did not take any action to claim the son as his child. BF knew that he was not the son's biological father, but he decided to have his name entered on the son's birth certificate as the son's father, and he cared for the son as his own child while he lived with W. Third, the magistrate resolved the competing presumptions by finding that it was in the child's best interests to declare BF to be the son's legal father. H asked the district court to rule in that the magistrate did not articulate the burden of proof that he used to resolve the competing presumptions of paternity and that the clear and convincing standard should apply. The district court then held that the proper burden of proof is the preponderance standard. The resolution method requires that the presumptions be balanced against each other and with the child's best interests, 'a preponderance standard seems to be the only rational standard to apply.'