Matter of Ryan
2021 NY Slip Op 00717 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A man alleging to be a child's biological father has standing under Family Court Act § 522 to commence a paternity proceeding and compel mandatory genetic testing, even when an Acknowledgment of Paternity has been executed by the mother and another man, unless testing is barred by res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy.
Facts:
- Shelby S. is the mother of a child born out of wedlock.
- During the period of conception, Shelby S. engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with both her boyfriend, Ryan S., and with the petitioner, Ryan M. E.
- Shortly after the child's birth, Shelby S. and her boyfriend, Ryan S., executed an Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP).
- In the AOP, Shelby S. falsely certified that Ryan S. was the 'only possible father' of the child.
- Within weeks of the child's birth, Ryan M. E. initiated a legal proceeding to establish his paternity.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Ryan M. E. commenced a paternity proceeding in Allegany County Family Court against respondents Shelby S. (mother) and Ryan S. (mother's boyfriend).
- Petitioner moved for genetic testing and to vacate the Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) executed by respondents.
- The Family Court denied respondents' motion to dismiss, granted petitioner's motion for genetic testing, and deferred a decision on vacating the AOP.
- After genetic testing established petitioner's biological paternity, the Family Court entered an order adjudging him to be the child's father.
- The Family Court denied the petitioner's motion to vacate the AOP, believing it lacked the authority to do so.
- Respondents Shelby S. and Ryan S. (appellants) appealed the order of filiation to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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 alleging to be a child's biological father have standing to commence a paternity proceeding and compel genetic testing when a valid Acknowledgment of Paternity has already been executed by the mother and another man?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion
Yes, a man alleging to be a child's biological father has standing to commence a paternity proceeding and compel genetic testing despite an existing Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) signed by another man. The court reasoned that an AOP does not bar a paternity claim by a person who was not a party to it. Under Family Court Act § 522, any man 'alleging to be the father' has standing to commence a proceeding. Furthermore, genetic testing is mandatory under § 532(a) upon a party's motion, and a court can only deny it upon a written finding that it is not in the child's best interests based on one of three specific defenses: res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy. Because none of those defenses applied here—especially given that the petitioner acted promptly after the child's birth—the lower court was statutorily required to order the testing. The court also held that to avoid creating an impermissible 'three-parent arrangement,' the fraudulently executed AOP must be vacated.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that an Acknowledgment of Paternity is not an insurmountable barrier for a putative biological father who acts promptly to assert his rights. It clarifies that the statutory right to compel genetic testing under the Family Court Act is robust and can only be defeated by specific, well-established equitable defenses, not by a general or undefined 'best interests' analysis. The ruling protects the legal pathway for establishing biological parentage, preventing a mother and her partner from foreclosing a biological father's claim through a quickly executed, and in this case fraudulent, AOP. This precedent strengthens the legal standing of alleged fathers and emphasizes the court's role in determining true parentage.
