In re the Matter of: M. J. E. B. v. A. L. n/k/a A. T., E. G., C. L., Below, Ramsey County, intervenor
A16-487
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Child born Jan 2013; mother had relationships with E.G. (appellant) and M.B. (petitioner). Mother was married to C.L. at birth; C.L. renounced paternity in a filed recognition of parentage (ROP).
- Mother and E.G. signed and filed an ROP; E.G. openly held out the child, had regular contact, and paid child support. M.B. had intermittent, mother-permitted visits and later sought paternity.
- M.B. sued to establish paternity (Mar 2014); court-ordered genetic testing showed a 99.99% probability that M.B. is the biological father. District court vacated the ROP and E.G.’s child-support obligation.
- District court initially adjudicated M.B. father (Sept 2015); E.G. moved for amended findings/new trial. Court amended findings to analyze pre-August 1, 2015 §518.17 best-interests factors and found they slightly favored E.G.
- Despite best-interests factors favoring E.G., the court concluded the considerations of policy and logic supported adjudicating M.B. as the legal father (concern over impairing M.B.’s role and respecting biological relationship). E.G. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (E.G.) | Defendant's Argument (M.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether policy and logic favor one competing paternity presumption | Court improperly elevated genetic-test presumption over ROP and best-interests analysis | Genetic test and policy support adjudicating biological father; best-interests not dispositive | Affirmed: policy and logic support adjudicating M.B. father despite competing presumptions |
| Weight of genetic testing vs. presumptions from ROP/open holding-out | Genetic tie should not override ROP/open holding-out and child’s best interests | Genetic evidence is strong and relevant to blood relationships and future identity interests | Genetic test (99.99%) is an important consideration; court did not treat it as dispositive but properly weighed it |
| Role of child's existing relationships and stability (best-interests) | Best-interests factors (bonding, continuity) favored E.G.; court gave them insufficient weight | Best-interests evaluated and found only slightly favoring E.G.; other policy concerns counterbalance | Court properly applied §518.17 factors and reasonably found best-interests only slightly favored E.G. |
| Consideration of M.B.’s parenting ability and past conduct (anger issues) | M.B.’s anger/instability makes him unsuitable; court ignored this | M.B. acknowledged issues and took remedial steps; court considered and weighed this evidence | Court considered misconduct and remedial efforts; findings on credibility and weight not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Suggs, 653 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. App. 2002) (overview of parentage-act presumptions)
- In re Welfare of C.M.G., 516 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 1994) (best-interests and blood/relationship considerations in competing presumptions)
- In re Paternity of B.J.H., 573 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. App. 1998) (conflicting presumptions resolved by policy and logic)
- State v. Thomas, 584 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. App. 1998) (importance of preserving blood relationships)
- Kelly v. Cataldo, 488 N.W.2d 822 (Minn. App. 1992) (considering existing relationships in paternity disputes)
- McClelland v. McClelland, 393 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. App. 1986) (law-of-the-case and intervening statutory changes)