Department of Human Services v. Chisum
85 P.3d 860, 2004 OK CIV APP 20 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A voluntary acknowledgment of paternity signed in good-faith reliance on the mother's assertions may be vacated on the grounds of a material mistake of fact if subsequent genetic testing conclusively proves the man is not the biological father. The court will not impose a legal duty on a putative father to demand genetic testing before signing such an acknowledgment.
Facts:
- A child, A, was born out of wedlock on June 7, 1999.
- On that same day, based on assertions by A's mother that he was the father, Billy Jo Chisum signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity.
- In February of 2000, Chisum agreed to the entry of an Administrative Order for Child Support based on his acknowledgment.
- Several months later, Chisum came to suspect he was not A's biological father.
- Both private DNA testing and subsequent court-ordered genetic testing conclusively excluded Chisum as A's biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- Billy Jo Chisum agreed to an Administrative Order for Child Support, which was docketed in the District Court of Tulsa County on May 8, 2000.
- On April 16, 2001, Chisum filed a motion in the District Court to vacate the child support order and his prior acknowledgment of paternity.
- The trial court found that Chisum's acknowledgment was based on a material mistake of fact and granted his motion to vacate.
- The Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma.
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 a man's good-faith reliance on a mother's assertion of his paternity, without demanding prior genetic testing, constitute a 'material mistake of fact' sufficient under Oklahoma law to vacate a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and a subsequent child support order when DNA evidence later proves he is not the biological father?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams, Judge
Yes. A man's good-faith reliance on a mother's assertion of his paternity constitutes a 'material mistake of fact' sufficient to vacate a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity and a subsequent child support order. The court reasoned that the specific statute allowing for challenges based on a 'material mistake of fact' (10 O.S.Supp.1999 § 70) takes precedence over general rules against vacating final orders, so res judicata did not bar Chisum's claim. The court declined to impose a 'legal duty' on putative fathers to demand genetic testing before acknowledging paternity, concluding that relying on the mother's direct assertions does not constitute neglect. Finally, citing Barber v. Barber, the court rejected the Department of Human Services' (DHS) argument that equitable theories like the 'best interests of the child' or 'psychological parenthood' could be used to establish legal paternity in a man who is not the biological father.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that in Oklahoma, biological parentage is paramount in paternity disputes and can overcome a prior voluntary acknowledgment if that acknowledgment was based on a factual mistake. The court's refusal to impose a duty for pre-acknowledgment genetic testing protects men who act in good faith and prevents the injection of automatic suspicion into these situations. By rejecting equitable theories like 'psychological parenthood,' the court draws a clear line, distinguishing Oklahoma's approach from other jurisdictions that may prioritize a child's established emotional bonds over biological reality. This precedent makes it more difficult to hold a non-biological father financially responsible for a child, even if he has previously acted as the father.
