WILSON Et Al. v. MOORE
342 Ga. App. 598
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child M.S.W. born Sept. 12, 2011; mother is Ms. Wilson. Biological paternity presented as disputed between Benjamin Moore (biological father) and Jack Wilson (husband of mother).
- Jack Wilson was named father on the birth certificate, signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and an acknowledgment of legitimation the day after birth; he later married Ms. Wilson and raised the child in the family unit.
- Moore had a brief relationship with Ms. Wilson in Dec. 2010, learned in 2013 that Ms. Wilson had a child and that he might be the biological father, and pursued DNA testing and legitimation in 2015.
- DNA testing in 2015 showed Moore is the biological father; Moore filed a petition for DNA paternity testing and legitimation; Jack Wilson moved to intervene and filed his own petition for legitimation and later for adoption.
- Trial court granted Moore’s petition to legitimate the child and denied Jack Wilson’s adoption/counterclaims, finding Moore had not abandoned his opportunity interest and was fit; the court concluded Jack Wilson was neither the biological nor the legal father.
- Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the trial court failed to consider the preclusive effect of Jack Wilson’s prior administrative legitimation under OCGA § 19-7-21.1 and directing reconsideration of delegitimation’s impact on the child’s established familial bonds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jack Wilson is the child’s legal father by virtue of administrative legitimation | Wilsons: the voluntary acknowledgment and acknowledgement of legitimation executed at birth made Jack the legal father | Moore: as biological father, he may legitimate the child and delegitimate the legal father | Court: vacated trial court order and remanded for consideration of preclusive effect of Jack’s administrative legitimation |
| Whether Moore abandoned his opportunity interest to parent | Moore: did not abandon; moved to assert rights after learning facts | Wilsons: delay and knowledge timeline undermine Moore’s claim | Court: on remand, trial court should reassess abandonment in light of correct timeline (Moore learned in 2013) if relevant |
| Whether delegitimation is in the child’s best interest given established familial bonds | Moore: biological parentage and fitness favor legitimation | Wilsons: delegitimation would harm child’s lifelong relationship with Jack | Court: directs trial court to consider best-interest harm from breaking established parent–child relationship if it addresses Moore’s petition |
| Whether trial court erred by not considering preclusive effect of administrative legitimation | Wilsons: trial court failed to address legal preclusive effect of prior legitimation | Moore: sought legitimation without first resolving preclusive effect | Court: trial court erred by not addressing preclusive effect; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. LaBrec, 274 Ga. 5 (2001) (delegitimation impacts family unit; court must consider best interests before breaking legal parent–child relationship)
- Labrec v. Davis, 243 Ga. App. 307 (2000) (trial court should evaluate emotional harm and established bonds when considering delegitimation)
- Baker v. Lankford, 306 Ga. App. 327 (2010) (discusses procedural and substantive considerations in legitimation/adoption disputes)