State v. Vanidy R. Cross
2018AP001645
Wis. Ct. App.Jan 7, 2020Background
- Child N.D.S. born January 23, 2017; parents Vanidy R. Cross (mother) and Deray J. Shaffale signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity (VPA) filed March 24, 2017 (VPA itself not in record).
- State filed a child support petition naming Shaffale; Shaffale later obtained a private DNA test (dated July 17, 2017) showing 0% probability he is the father.
- Shaffale sought to void the VPA; court commissioner certified matter to circuit court and a guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to investigate best interest issues.
- At hearings, Shaffale said he signed the VPA quickly to obtain insurance for the child and had not read the document; Cross was not called as a sworn witness and did not testify to circumstances of signing.
- Trial court denied Shaffale’s request, finding no fraud, duress, or mistake of fact and concluding voiding could leave the child "potentially fatherless" (invoking a best-interest rationale).
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: the record was inadequate to support the trial court’s findings on fraud/mistake and an evidentiary hearing was required; parties had not developed or cited authority for applying a best-interest standard under Wis. Stat. § 767.805(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shaffale) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court clearly erred in finding no fraud or mistake of fact in signing the VPA | Shaffale: record shows he signed only to get insurance and DNA excludes him; contract/fraud principles should govern | State: VPA can be voided only for fraud, duress, or mistake and Shaffale did not meet that burden | Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing — record insufficient to support no-fraud/no-mistake finding |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before denying the motion to void the VPA | Shaffale: trial court conducted inadequate factfinding and failed to afford opportunity for sworn testimony and cross-examination | State: relied on prior hearing statements and best-interest concerns to oppose voiding | Reversed — trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to develop factual record on fraud/mistake allegations |
| Whether the best-interest-of-the-child standard governs voiding a VPA under Wis. Stat. § 767.805(5) | Shaffale: trial court’s best-interest finding was legally erroneous and not supported by § 767.41 factors | State & GAL: preserving a named father on the birth record can serve the child’s best interests (practical/policy argument) | Court of Appeals: parties and court failed to develop or cite authority; statute does not reference best-interest standard — issue undecided and must be addressed on remand with legal authority cited |
Key Cases Cited
- Scace v. Schulte, 382 Wis. 2d 180 (discussing de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Shannon E.T. v. Alicia M.V.M., 299 Wis. 2d 601 (plain statutory language controls; avoid extrinsic sources)
- State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627 (court will not address undeveloped arguments)
- Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Sec. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97 (failure to refute an argument may constitute a concession)
- A.O. Smith Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 475 (argument abandonment where not raised on appeal)