B.M. v. S.K.
953 N.E.2d 96
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Father executed a paternity affidavit on June 2, 1995 asserting he was T.M.’s biological father.
- Mother allegedly told Father he was the only possible father; Father declined a DNA test at that time.
- In 1997, the court established parental status, awarded custody to Mother, visitation to Father, and ordered child support; no testing challenged.
- For about fourteen years, Father acted as the legal father, paying support and sometimes providing insurance, with substantial custody/parenting time.
- In 2009, T.M. began living with Father; a mail-in DNA kit tested December 2009 indicated Father was not the biological father.
- Father moved in February 2010 to rescind the affidavit and obtain DNA testing; the trial court held hearings and ultimately denied relief in October 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of rescission under statute | Father argues fraud/duress/mistake justify rescission after 60 days. | Mother contends no fraud/mistake; timely procedures not met. | No rescission; statute required fraud/duress/mistake and court-ordered testing. |
| Admissibility of mail-in DNA test | DNA result supports disestablishment of paternity. | Test is inadmissible due to lack of certification/foundation. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the test; no admissible contrary evidence. |
| Public policy and how it interacts with statutory time limits | Public policy favors correctly identifying parents and might support testing. | Public policy does not override the 60-day limit absent fraud/mistake. | Policy favors establishing paternity but does not excuse untimely challenge absent fraud/mistake. |
| Credibility and weighing of evidence | DNA test and other evidence show non-paternity. | Mother’s testimony supports paternity and exclusive relationship at conception. | Trial court's credibility assessment affirmed; no reweighing of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of M.M., 889 N.E.2d 846 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (fraud/mistake allows rescission under strict limits)
- J.M. v. M.A., 950 N.E.2d 1191 (Ind.2011) (discussing rescission of paternity affidavits)
- In re Paternity of E.M.L.G., 863 N.E.2d 867 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (extreme/rare challenge to paternity with independent evidence)
- M.M., 889 N.E.2d 848 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (public policy considerations on paternity and testing)
- Fairrow v. Fairrow, 559 N.E.2d 597 (Ind.1990) (public policy disfavors support orders against non-fathers)
- S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind.1992) (public policy and identification of parents)