Mcgee v. Gonyo

140 A.3d 162 (2016)

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

The child, a girl, was born on May 27, 2011. Shortly thereafter, on June 6, 2011, the child's mother and D filed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage (VAP) form with the Department of Health, Agency of Human Services. Both parties signed the form, which stated that they “voluntarily and without coercion, and of our own free will, hereby acknowledge that we are the biological parents of the child” and understand and accept “the legal rights and responsibilities that come with being a parent,” including rights to custody, visitation, and notice before the child may be adopted. The child's birth certificate identified mother and defendant as the child's parents. Mother and D separated in 2012. In October 2013, the Office of Child Support (OCS) filed a Complaint for Support and Recovery of Debt, together with a “Motion for Genetic Testing Despite Parentage Presumption.” OCS stated there were grounds to believe that D was not the biological father based on mother's affidavit naming another individual as the biological father, and stating that she was already fourteen weeks pregnant when she and D got together. D opposed the motion for genetic testing and asked the court “to grant [him] a parentage order of the child.” D acknowledged that he was not the child's biological father and was aware of this when he signed the VAP, but claimed that there was “nothing wrong” with doing so and that the time for rescinding it had expired. Genetic testing excluded D as the child's biological father. The mother filed a pro se motion to dismiss D's parentage action, and OCS moved to set aside the VAP and to set the matter for a hearing. The family court issued a summary “order of non-parentage” based on the genetic test, dismissed D's parentage action, and ordered the case closed. D asked for reconsideration. D testified about how he had assumed the rule of a father to the child. The Mother stated that she and D had knowingly signed the VAP, which falsely stated that D was the child's biological father. The court reaffirmed its earlier ruling. The court concluded that defendant lacked standing to bring a parentage action because he is not the “natural parent” of the child under. D appealed.