S.N.M. v. M.F. – Superior Court –
November 20, 2017
Held:
Trial court erred in ordering putative father’s (PF) 2016 motion for
genetic testing, where custody order had been entered between mother and PF, including
PF’s formal acknowledgment of paternity.
In
R.W.E. v. A.B.R., 961 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. 2008), the Court stated that a signed,
witnessed, voluntary acknowledgment of paternity shall be considered a legal
finding of paternity if it is not rescinded by the signatories within sixty
days of its signing. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5103(g)(1). After sixty days, the
acknowledgment may only be challenged in court on the basis of fraud, duress or
material mistake of fact, if established by the challenger through clear and
convincing evidence. 23 Pa.C.S. §
5103(g)(2). Id. at 167. Thus, because PF signed the acknowledgment of paternity
and presented nothing to show fraud, duress or material mistake of fact, the
paternity of child was established and cannot be challenged at this point. Accord, D.M. v. V.B., 87 A.3d 323, 327 (Pa. Super.
2014)
See
also Wachter v. Ascero, 550 A.2d 1019, 1021 (Pa. Super. 1988) (stating that
“blood test should not have been ordered … even for humanitarian purposes, and
should never be ordered unless it is to establish paternity in a proceeding
where paternity is a relevant fact and has not already been determined in a prior
proceeding”). Here, the custody agreement, made an order of court, is such a
proceeding that determined paternity. Accordingly, the trial court abused its
discretion in granting the genetic testing.
