828 S.E.2d 263
Va. Ct. App.2019Background
- Child born April 11, 2012; mother Price had sexual relations with both Bedell and Matzuk around conception and told both they might be the father.
- Matzuk signed a sworn acknowledgement of paternity under Va. Code § 20-49.1(B)(2); child was given Matzuk’s name and Matzuk helped care for and support the child.
- In 2015 Price had a DNA test showing Bedell is the biological father; Price later obtained a new birth certificate naming Bedell.
- Circuit court (judge presiding over the custody proceeding) found all three—Price, Bedell, and Matzuk—were parents, awarded Price primary physical custody, joint legal custody to all three, and visitation to Matzuk.
- A separate circuit court proceeding disestablished Matzuk’s paternity and established Bedell as the father; that order was entered the same day and affirmed by this Court in a companion opinion.
- On appeal Bedell challenged the custody order to the extent it treated Matzuk as a parent and awarded him custody/visitation; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bedell) | Defendant's Argument (Price/Matzuk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matzuk is a parent of the child | Matzuk is not a parent because DNA proves Bedell is the biological father; Matzuk’s acknowledgment resulted from a material mistake of fact | Matzuk argued his signed acknowledgment created legal parentage and the custody court properly treated him as a parent | The court held Matzuk is not a parent: the acknowledgment was a material mistake of fact given unchallenged DNA proving Bedell is the biological father, so Matzuk’s paternity must be rejected |
| Whether custody/visitation order granting parental rights to Matzuk was proper | Award to Matzuk was improper because he is not a parent and parental solicitude must be given to Bedell and Price | The custody court asserted best interests favored involving all three as parents and gave Matzuk joint legal custody and visitation | Reversed: because Matzuk is not a parent the circuit court erred in applying parental solicitude and its custody/visitation rulings must be vacated and remanded for appropriate inquiry |
| Whether third-party visitation inquiry was conducted adequately | Bedell argued the court failed to perform required third-party visitation analysis if Matzuk was not a parent | Price/movants relied on parental-status rationale to avoid third-party framework | Held: no third-party analysis was performed; remand required for the court to consider third-party visitation standards, giving due deference to parents’ constitutional rights |
| Whether reversal requires remand for further factfinding | Bedell sought remand to revisit custody/visitation consistent with parentage ruling | Price asked affirmance or relief consistent with her interests | Held: reversed and remanded to allow development of record and proper third-party visitation inquiry (if appropriate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights and deference to fit parents in visitation decisions)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parents entitled to hearing on fitness before children removed)
- Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) (plurality opinion recognizing limits on dual fatherhood)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (parental authority as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (a court abuses discretion when it makes an error of law)
- Hawkins v. Grese, 68 Va. App. 462 (2018) (parent-child relationship arises from biology or legal adoption)
- Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326 (1990) (best interests govern custody)
- Rubino v. Rubino, 64 Va. App. 256 (2015) (reversal for factual findings only if plainly wrong or unsupported)
- Stadter v. Siperko, 52 Va. App. 81 (2008) (visitation rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bristol Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Welch, 64 Va. App. 34 (2014) (appellate review view of evidence in custody matters)