BATES v. COPELAND
347 P.3d 318, 2015 OK CIV APP 30 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal presumption that a child born during a marriage is the child of the husband can only be rebutted through a formal court adjudication or by a valid Acknowledgment of Paternity from another man that is accompanied by a valid Denial of Paternity from the presumed father. An action to adjudicate paternity must be filed within two years of the child's birth unless specific statutory exceptions are met.
Facts:
- Matthew Wayne Copeland, II (Copeland) and Angela Copeland (Mother) married on October 29, 2003.
- Copeland and Mother separated in July 2008 but continued to engage in sexual relations.
- After the separation, Mother entered into a sexual relationship with Coleman Bates, III (Bates).
- On September 24, 2009, Mother gave birth to a child while still legally married to Copeland.
- The child's birth certificate listed 'Bates' as the last name.
- On September 25, 2009, Bates and Mother executed an Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) form for the child.
- On the AOP form, Bates and Mother falsely stated that Mother was not married at the time of conception or birth.
- Copeland, the presumed father, never executed a Denial of Paternity.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 23, 2018, Copeland (Petitioner) commenced a dissolution of marriage action against Mother in a state trial court, alleging the child's paternity was uncertain and requesting genetic testing.
- On October 4, 2018, Bates (Plaintiff) filed a separate action in the same trial court to determine his paternity of the child.
- Copeland filed a motion to vacate the Acknowledgment of Paternity signed by Bates and a motion to dismiss Bates's paternity action as untimely.
- The State of Oklahoma, through its Department of Human Services, also filed an objection to Bates's paternity petition.
- The trial court granted Copeland's motions, vacating the AOP and dismissing Bates's paternity action.
- Bates (Plaintiff/Appellant) appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Acknowledgment of Paternity, signed by a biological father and a married mother who falsely stated she was unmarried, rebut the husband's legal presumption of paternity when the biological father's court action to establish parentage is filed more than two years after the child's birth?
Opinions:
Majority - Joplin, J.
No. An Acknowledgment of Paternity based on a false statement regarding the mother's marital status is voidable and does not overcome the statutory presumption of the husband's paternity, especially when the action to adjudicate paternity is filed outside the two-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that under Oklahoma law, Copeland is the child's presumed father because the child was born during his marriage to Mother. This strong marital presumption can only be rebutted by a court adjudication or a valid Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) filed in conjunction with a valid Denial of Paternity from the presumed father. Because Copeland never signed a denial, and the AOP submitted by Bates and Mother was based on the false premise that Mother was unmarried, it was voidable and insufficient to rebut Copeland's presumed status. Furthermore, Bates filed his paternity action well after the two-year statutory limit prescribed by 10 O.S. § 7700-607(A) and failed to produce evidence meeting the statutory exceptions for an untimely filing, such as proving Copeland and Mother did not have sexual intercourse during the probable time of conception.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant legal weight of the marital presumption of paternity and underscores the strict procedural and temporal requirements for challenging it. The court prioritizes the stability of the family unit and the legal status of the child over a purely biological determination of parentage, particularly when a challenge is untimely. The case serves as a clear warning that statutory deadlines in parentage actions are rigidly enforced and that procedural shortcuts, such as filing an AOP with false information, are ineffective against the presumption of legitimacy. For future cases, this holding solidifies that both an AOP from the putative father and a Denial of Paternity from the presumed father are necessary to administratively rebut the marital presumption without court intervention.
Unlock the full brief for BATES v. COPELAND