Tyler F. v. Sara P.
306 Neb. 397
Neb.2020Background
- At J.F.’s birth (Aug. 2008) Tyler and Sara signed a notarized acknowledgment of paternity; Tyler appears on the birth certificate and acted as J.F.’s father for years.
- Sara had sexual relations with both Tyler and Geoffrey around the conception window and later told Geoffrey he might be the father; she never told Tyler about Geoffrey’s potential paternity.
- Tyler filed a paternity/custody action; the district court ordered DNA testing that excluded Tyler as the biological father.
- Sara sought to set aside Tyler’s acknowledgment of paternity alleging material mistake (erroneous due date); Geoffrey later filed to establish paternity and sought custody/child support.
- The district court treated Tyler and Geoffrey as fathers and ultimately awarded joint legal and physical custody to Sara, Tyler, and Geoffrey; Tyler appealed and Geoffrey cross-appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed denial of rescission of the acknowledgment, held a prior valid acknowledgment must be set aside before a third party’s paternity claim can proceed, reversed the three‑person custody award, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a notarized acknowledgment of paternity must be set aside before a third party may pursue paternity | Geoffrey (and district court) treated his complaint as independently actionable despite Tyler’s acknowledgment | Tyler: a properly executed, unrescinded acknowledgment is a legal finding of paternity and bars third‑party paternity actions unless set aside | Held: A prior valid acknowledgment legally establishes paternity and must be set aside (fraud, duress, or material mistake) before a third party’s paternity claim is considered |
| Whether DNA exclusion alone can defeat a valid acknowledgment | Sara/Geoffrey: DNA proving Tyler is not biological father warrants disestablishment | Tyler: acknowledgment creates legal paternity regardless of biology | Held: DNA exclusion is insufficient; statutes refuse relief from acknowledgment based solely on genetic exclusion |
| Whether Sara proved material mistake to rescind the acknowledgment (due‑date error) | Sara: incorrect projected due date caused mutual/material mistake about biological father | Tyler: Sara knew the possibility of Geoffrey and failed to exercise reasonable diligence before executing acknowledgment | Held: Sara failed to meet burden to show material mistake; the acknowledgment remains in effect |
| Whether the district court properly awarded joint legal/physical custody to three parents | Geoffrey sought custody as biological father; court treated three persons as legal parents | Tyler argued the court lacked basis to consider Geoffrey’s paternity and the three‑person custody award was inconsistent with statutes | Held: Court committed plain error by considering Geoffrey’s paternity without setting aside Tyler’s acknowledgment; the three‑person custody award was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the acknowledgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979 (2011) (an undisturbed acknowledgment of paternity is legally dispositive and precludes DNA testing to relitigate paternity)
- In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (2016) (discusses legal effect of a properly executed acknowledgment as a legal finding of paternity)
- Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 283 Neb. 340 (2012) (reasonable diligence standard for parties executing acknowledgments)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich. App. 149 (2006) (appellate court reversed trial court that created two legal fathers where an unrevoked acknowledgment existed)
- Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prior judicial determination of paternity bars subsequent paternity relitigation without striking the first determination)