PAUL v. WILLIAMSON
2014 OK CIV APP 31, 322 P.3d 1070 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal proceeding to challenge another individual's acknowledged paternity must be commenced within two years of the acknowledgment, as this statutory time limit is strictly enforced to promote finality and stability in parent-child relationships.
Facts:
- In 2004, Renee Williamson became pregnant while dating and living with Tony Lopez.
- Williamson ended her relationship with Lopez while still pregnant and began dating Randy Paul.
- Williamson gave birth to A.P. on February 7, 2005.
- On February 8, 2005, Paul signed an affidavit acknowledging paternity and was named as A.P.'s father on the birth certificate, despite knowing he was not the biological father.
- Paul, Williamson, and A.P. lived together as a family until late 2007.
- Lopez knew of A.P.'s birth shortly after it occurred and was aware that Paul was named as the father on the birth certificate.
- In the summer of 2009, Lopez contacted Paul, whom he knew to be the child's legal father, to report A.P.'s deplorable living conditions with Williamson.
- Lopez maintained periodic contact with A.P. throughout her life but took no legal action to establish his own paternity.
Procedural Posture:
- Randy Paul filed a Petition to Establish Paternity and Custody in a state trial court on January 22, 2008.
- On October 7, 2008, the trial court entered a default judgment against the mother, Renee Williamson, awarding sole custody of A.P. to Paul.
- On April 25, 2012, Tony Lopez filed a motion to intervene and a petition to vacate the 2008 custody order in the same trial court.
- The trial court granted Lopez's motions and, on April 19, 2013, issued an order vacating the 2008 custody order awarded to Paul.
- Paul, as Petitioner/Appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to vacate the custody order 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:
Is a biological father's attempt to vacate a custody order and challenge another man's paternity time-barred when filed more than two years after he had constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Kenneth L. Buettner
Yes, a biological father's attempt to challenge paternity is time-barred when filed more than two years after he had knowledge of the claim. Under both the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) and pre-UPA law, a proceeding to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity must be commenced within two years. Lopez knew since the child's birth in 2005 that Paul was the acknowledged father on the birth certificate. This constructive notice was sufficient to start the two-year statute of limitations, which expired long before Lopez filed his motion in 2012. The court cited Hill v. Blevins to support the principle that a challenger is chargeable with the knowledge of publicly available information, like a birth certificate, and cannot wait indefinitely to assert his rights. The court also held that Paul, as the legal father, had no duty to provide special notice of the 2008 custody proceeding to Lopez, a non-party who failed to timely protect his own potential parental rights.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of finality in paternity adjudications and prioritizes the stability of an established legal parent-child relationship over a biological connection. It serves as a stark reminder that statutes of limitation in parentage cases are strictly construed to prevent disruption to a child's life years after paternity has been legally settled. The ruling clarifies that a biological father's inaction in the face of known facts can lead to the permanent extinguishment of his parental rights. Future litigants are on notice that they must act swiftly to assert paternity claims or risk being barred by statute.
