In Re the Paternity of S.C.
966 N.E.2d 143
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Paternity disputes arose between B.H. and C.C. over S.C.'s paternity after her birth in 2008.
- B.H. filed a Fayette County paternity petition; C.C. filed a Hancock County petition shortly after.
- A July 2008 DNA test indicated B.H. as the likely father; an accompanying paternity affidavit named C.C. as the father.
- C.C. and Mother executed a Verified Joint Stipulation Establishing Paternity in Hancock County, asserting C.C.’s paternity.
- The Hancock County order establishing paternity was entered on October 22, 2008, while B.H.’s Fayette action was pending; B.H. later sought relief from judgment for fraud in 2010, leading to the present appeal.
- The trial court found Mother and C.C. engaged in a plan to defraud the court, voided the Hancock County paternity order, and granted relief from judgment to B.H.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hancock County order was obtained by fraud on the court | B.H. argues no fraud occurred that affected his rights | Mother contends no fraud that impacted B.H.’s rights; paternity claim already resolved by hospital affidavit | Yes; court found an unconscionable plan to influence the Hancock court and granted relief |
| Whether the paternity affidavit and related filings effectively terminated B.H.’s paternity rights | B.H. maintains the affidavit cannot be voided to terminate his rights | Mother argues the affidavit, and the Hancock order, were invalid or immaterial to B.H.’s rights | The affidavit could be voided due to fraud on the court, and the order was voided; B.H.’s rights were not preserved by the Hancock action alone |
| Whether fraud-on-the-court standards were properly applied and satisfied | B.H. contends fraud on the court occurred and warrants relief under TR 60(B) | Mother contends no improper influence on the court and that relief was improper | Yes; the trial court’s relief was proper under TR 60(B) given the unconscionable plan and impact on proceedings |
| Public policy considerations of recognizing paternity and support | Affirming B.H.’s paternity serves child identification and support | Affirming may undermine the statutory framework for paternity determination | Court deferred to policy favoring correct parentage and potential for later actions; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of Tompkins, 518 N.E.2d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (fraud on the court can deprive a child of day in court; distinguishable on facts)
- Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002) (fraud on the court requires unconscionable plan and denial of fair presentation)
- In re Paternity of S.R.I., 602 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. 1992) (public policy disfavors determining support against non-fathers; policy implications for paternity)
- Russell v. Russell, 682 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. 1997) (public policy favors correctly identifying the child’s biological father)