Tyler F. v. Sara P.
945 N.W.2d 502
Neb.2020Background:
- Sara gave birth to J.F. in August 2008. At the hospital, Sara and Tyler signed a notarized acknowledgment of paternity listing Tyler as the father; no rescission was timely sought.
- Sara had a sexual relationship with Geoffrey around the relevant time and later told Geoffrey she thought he might be the biological father; Sara never told Tyler about Geoffrey’s possible paternity before executing the acknowledgment.
- Years later court-ordered DNA testing (ordered improperly, the court later held) excluded Tyler as the biological father; Sara then sought to set aside the acknowledgment claiming material mistake of fact.
- Geoffrey filed a separate paternity action after learning of the DNA results; the trial court treated both Tyler and Geoffrey as fathers and ultimately awarded joint legal and physical custody to Sara, Tyler, and Geoffrey.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed on some grounds and remanded; on further review the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Sara’s request to set aside Tyler’s acknowledgment, held the trial court committed plain error by entertaining Geoffrey’s paternity claim without first setting aside Tyler’s valid acknowledgment, reversed the three‑person custody award, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior, properly executed, unrescinded acknowledgment of paternity must be set aside before a third party may seek to establish paternity | Tyler: acknowledgment is a legal finding of paternity and bars subsequent paternity actions unless set aside | Geoffrey/Sara: DNA exclusion and factual circumstances allow consideration of third‑party paternity without first setting aside acknowledgment | Held: A valid acknowledgment is a legal paternity determination and must be set aside (fraud, duress, or material mistake) before a third party’s paternity can be considered |
| Whether Sara proved material mistake of fact to rescind the acknowledgment | Sara: incorrect projected due date created a material mistake that led to the joint acknowledgment | Tyler: Sara knew of possible alternative paternity (Geoffrey) and failed to exercise reasonable diligence; burden is on challenger | Held: Sara failed to meet burden; district court did not err in denying rescission |
| Whether the trial court properly considered Geoffrey’s paternity claim and awarded three legal parents custody | Geoffrey: court could determine his paternity based on DNA and other facts | Tyler/Sara: Acknowledgment foreclosed such a determination unless set aside; statutes contemplate a single paternity determination | Held: Trial court committed plain error by considering Geoffrey’s claim while acknowledgment remained effective; three‑parent custody was reversed |
| Whether Geoffrey’s procedural posture, standing, and statute of limitations barred his claims | Geoffrey: he acted as next friend and in his individual capacity and was unaware of paternity until 2014; statute of limitations tolled or waived | Tyler: challenged standing and timeliness (some defenses not timely pled) | Held: Court found plain error in allowing consideration of Geoffrey’s claim without first addressing the acknowledgment; remand required to resolve remaining procedural issues under proper legal framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesar C. v. Alicia L., 281 Neb. 979, 800 N.W.2d 249 (2011) (an undisturbed, properly executed acknowledgment of paternity has legal effect and cannot be displaced merely by subsequent DNA testing)
- In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917, 883 N.W.2d 22 (2016) (acknowledgment treated as legal finding of paternity after rescission period)
- State on behalf of Kaaden S. v. Jeffery T., 303 Neb. 933, 932 N.W.2d 692 (2019) (standards for reviewing filiation/custody matters)
- Sinicropi v. Mazurek, 273 Mich. App. 149, 729 N.W.2d 256 (2006) (unrevoked acknowledgment bars subsequent filiation order that would create multiple legal fathers)
- Barr v. Bartolo, 927 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (previous support order adjudicating paternity barred later third‑party paternity relitigation without striking first determination)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015) (noting post‑Obergefell context but holding Nebraska statutes still assume two parents)