W.C. v. J.H., 930 N.W.2d 181

W.C. filed a paternity action in 2018 seeking to adjudicate parentage, residential responsibility, decision making, parenting time, and child support for a child born November 2013.
The mother, J.H., had been divorced from T.H. in June 2013; because the child was born within 300 days of that divorce, T.H. is the presumed father under N.D.C.C. § 14-20-42.
W.C. sought discovery (medical and financial records) to challenge the presumed father’s status; J.H. moved to quash that discovery as irrelevant and invasive.
The district court granted the motion to quash discovery, finding those records not relevant and unlikely to change the governing legal analysis under § 14-20-42.
At an evidentiary hearing, the court heard testimony and received T.H.’s interrogatory answers and photos indicating T.H. had acted as the child’s father (e.g., present at birth, financial and custodial involvement).
The district court found W.C. failed to disprove the parent–child relationship (including that T.H. openly held out the child as his own) and denied W.C.’s petition; W.C. appealed the discovery ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by quashing W.C.’s discovery of medical and financial records	W.C.: records were relevant to proving J.H. and T.H. did not cohabitate or have sexual relations at probable conception and would aid rebutting presumed paternity	J.H./T.H.: records were irrelevant, overly intrusive, and would not affect the § 14-20-42 inquiry	Court: No abuse of discretion; discovery quashed because records would not likely change outcome and T.H.’s evidence showed he openly held out the child
Whether W.C. met the statutory burden to overcome the presumption of paternity under N.D.C.C. § 14-20-42	W.C.: argued lack of cohabitation and different residence during probable conception, and absence of corroborating medical records	T.H.: presented testimony, interrogatory answers, and photos demonstrating cohabitation/relationship and that he held out the child as his own	Court: W.C. failed to prove neither cohabitation/sexual intercourse nor that T.H. failed to openly hold out the child; petition denied

Bertsch v. Bertsch, 740 N.W.2d 388 (N.D. 2007) (district court has broad discretion over discovery)
Flattum-Riemers v. Flattum-Riemers, 660 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 2003) (burden on party alleging abuse of discretion)
Schaefer v. Souris River Telecomm. Coop., 618 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 2000) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2001) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for district court’s)
Matter of Estate of Sorensen, 411 N.W.2d 362 (N.D. 1987) (isolated verbal claims of parentage insufficient to show openly held out)
Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (openly held out analysis is fact-specific; consider commitment/responsibility)
R.M. v. T.A., 233 Cal.App.4th 760 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (all circumstances may be considered to determine whether a person assumed responsibility for a child)