Debra L. McGee/Office of Child Support v. Justin Gonyo
140 A.3d 162
| Vt. | 2016Background
- Child born May 27, 2011; VAP signed June 6, 2011 identifying both as biological parents; birth certificate lists both as parents.
- Mother and Gonyo separated in 2012; OCS filed October 2013 to recover support and for genetic testing despite parentage presumption.
- Gonyo acknowledged not biological father but sought to establish parentage; genetic test in January 2014 excluded him.
- Family court granted genetic testing, dismissed Gonyo’s parentage action in February 2014 and closed the case.
- May 2014 hearing: Gonyo testified about his role; mother admitted VAP misrepresented biological paternity; ongoing concerns about the VAP’s validity.
- July 2014 decision: court held Gonyo lacked standing under 15 V.S.A. § 302(a) and that the VAP was ineffective to establish parentage; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VAP can be set aside as fraud on the court | OCS contends the VAP was a fraud on the court; misrepresentation by both signatories undermines the process | Gonyo argues the VAP was valid and cannot be set aside under ordinary timelines | VAP set aside as fraud on the court; affirmed nonparentage. |
| Whether Gonyo lacked standing to pursue a parentage action | OCS posits the VAP creates a presumptive determination of parentage that precludes independent action | Gonyo contends he may still pursue parentage despite VAP | Gonyo lacked standing; affirmed dismissal of independent parentage action. |
| Whether the VAP’s presumptive legal determination of parentage remains after set-aside | OCS argues presumption persists unless VAP rescinded within 60 days or relief granted | Gonyo argues set-aside removes presumption and allows remedy only via fraud claim | VAP as presumptive determination is set aside; action unchanged by presumption. |
| Application of Rule 60(b)(6) and finality principles | OCS relies on Rule 60(b)(6) catch-all due to fraud on the court | Gonyo and dissent argue finality and preclude belated challenges to paternity | Fraud-on-the-court exception allowed; finality policy limited; set-aside permitted. |
| Impact on best interests and potential legislative need for reform | OCS and majority emphasize finality and state interests in child support | Dissent argues for broader consideration of parental bonds and legislative fixes | Majority urges legislative reform; concurrence/dissent call for broader parental consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514 (1998) (fraud-on-the-court narrow exception not always applicable; finality concerns)
- In re Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (2006) (analyzed parental status and intents; stated finality principles in family law)
- Columbia v. Lawton, 2013 VT 2 (2013) (constitutionality and standing considerations for alternative biological parents)
- Olio v. Olio, 2012 VT 44 (2012) (fraud and Rule 60(b) issues; one-year limit and exceptions)
- Moreau v. Sylvester, 2014 VT 31 (2014) (dissent addressing broader parentage doctrines and finality)
- Columbia v. Lawton, 2013 VT 2 (2013) (constitutional considerations for parental status despite standing limits)