Bill W. Castillo v. Thania N. Lazo
241 Ariz. 295
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Between Sept. 2012 and Apr. 2013 Father had a sexual relationship with Mother; Mother gave birth to B.L. in July 2013 while married to Husband, who is listed on the birth certificate but was overseas at conception and is not the biological father.
- Father and his family established a relationship with B.L.; Father provided support and visitation.
- Father filed a paternity action in Dec. 2015 seeking parenting time and joint legal decision-making.
- Mother moved to dismiss, asserting A.R.S. § 25-812(E) (challallenge period for voluntary acknowledgments) barred the action; the trial court granted dismissal.
- The trial court considered materials outside the pleadings, so the appellate court treated the dismissal as summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, rejecting Mother's primary defenses and holding Father may bring the paternity action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-812(E) time bar prevents Father’s paternity suit | Father: § 25-812(E) applies only to "voluntary acknowledgments" and does not bar his suit | Mother: Birth certificate (naming Husband) is equivalent to a voluntary acknowledgment, so § 25-812(E) bars suit | Held: § 25-812(E) does not apply; birth certificate is not a § 25-812 voluntary acknowledgment and action is timely |
| Whether a birth certificate equals a voluntary acknowledgment under § 25-812 | Father: Birth certificate lacks required signatures, SSNs, notarization/witnessing—so not equivalent | Mother: Relies on prior cases and argues certificate functions as acknowledgment | Held: Birth certificate is not equivalent; legislature removed certificate as a means to file under § 25-812 in 2003 |
| Whether Father may bring a paternity proceeding though child was born during mother’s marriage | Father: A putative father may bring paternity action to establish biological parentage | Mother: Because child was born "in wedlock," § 25-803/§ 25-806 bar Father from bringing action | Held: Father may bring action under § 25-803(A)(2); marital status of mother does not bar putative father from proceeding and marital presumption can be rebutted |
| Procedural treatment of dismissal motion | Father: Court relied on extrinsic materials, so motion should be treated as summary judgment | Mother: Proceeded as dismissal for failure to state claim | Held: Appellate court treats the ruling as summary judgment and reviews accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Beatie v. Beatie, 235 Ariz. 427 (discusses de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Canyon del Rio Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 227 Ariz. 336 (documents outside pleadings convert motion to summary judgment)
- La Canada Hills Ltd. P’ship v. Kite, 217 Ariz. 126 (summary judgment review standard—view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Stephenson v. Nastro, 192 Ariz. 475 (prior case where signed/notarized acknowledgments were treated as acknowledgments of paternity)
- Ban v. Quigley, 168 Ariz. 196 (putative father may bring paternity action; marital status of mother is irrelevant when father brings suit)
- R.A.J. v. L.B.V., 169 Ariz. 92 (same principle permitting father to bring paternity action despite mother’s marital status)
- Andrew R. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 453 (discussion of properly executed acknowledgments of paternity)
- Chalpin v. Snyder, 220 Ariz. 413 (failure to respond to a debatable issue can constitute concession)
- In re Stephanie N., 210 Ariz. 317 (statutory interpretation requires harmonious reading of related provisions)