364 P.3d 951
Idaho2015Background
- Mother (Hedrick) and Gordon were unmarried; child M.H. born Nov. 2010. Gordon and Hedrick both signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VAP) the day after birth; Gordon’s name was placed on the birth certificate.
- The parties lived together until their relationship ended in Feb. 2013; Gordon filed to establish custody March 1, 2013; Hedrick counterclaimed for custody and requested genetic testing.
- Court-ordered genetic testing excluded Gordon as biological father (0.00% probability). Hedrick moved (treated as) for summary judgment to dismiss Gordon’s custody complaint and remove his name from the birth certificate.
- Magistrate court granted Hedrick’s motion, dismissed Gordon’s complaint, changed child’s name, and ordered removal of Gordon’s name; Gordon moved for reconsideration based on the VAP and I.C. § 7-1106(2).
- District court reversed the magistrate, holding a VAP may be rescinded only for fraud, duress, or "material mistake of fact," which it interpreted below as requiring proof the VAP was the product of such grounds; the Idaho Supreme Court affirms the district court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Gordon's Argument | Hedrick's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "material mistake of fact" in I.C. § 7-1106(2) requires a mutual mistake | District court correct that statute requires more than unilateral mistake; Gordon urges strict reading to require mutual mistake | Statute does not require mutual mistake; plain language omits "mutual" | Court: "material mistake" does not mean "mutual mistake," but rescission requires proof that the challenger’s VAP was the product of fraud, duress, or mistake at execution; challenger bears burden by clear and convincing evidence |
| Proper burden of proof to rescind a VAP under I.C. § 7-1106(2) | Favoring heightened (clear and convincing) standard given finality and VAP as legal finding | Agrees that strong proof is required but contest on standard was limited | Court: challenger must prove fraud, duress, or material mistake by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether a genetic test disproving paternity automatically rescinds a VAP | Gordon: VAP creates a conclusive legal finding unless rescinded under §7-1106(2) | Hedrick: statutory scheme (other provisions) makes genetic exclusion conclusive and should rescind VAP | Court: Genetic exclusion under other paternity provisions does not override §7-1106(2); a VAP can be challenged only on fraud, duress, or material mistake (no automatic rescission) |
| Whether constitutional claims raised by Hedrick may be considered on appeal | Gordon: not applicable | Hedrick: VAP procedure and consequences raise constitutional liberty/notice issues | Court: declined to address constitutional arguments raised first on appeal; should have been raised earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Peterson, 157 Idaho 827 (discussing standard of review for district court acting in intermediate appellate capacity)
- Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. McCormick, 153 Idaho 468 (same appellate-review principles)
- Montgomery v. Montgomery, 147 Idaho 1 (summary judgment standard and construing inferences for nonmoving party)
- O'Connor v. Harger Const., Inc., 145 Idaho 904 (clear and convincing standard for fraud claims)
- Profits Plus Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Podesta, 156 Idaho 873 (clear and convincing standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(3))