State ex rel. Department of Human Services ex rel. Snellings v. Strohmeyer
925 P.2d 77 (1995)
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 offspring of the husband can be rebutted, even after the statutory two-year period, if there is sufficient evidence that the husband and wife consistently disputed the husband's paternity from the child's birth.
Facts:
- In 1983, Lori Ann Snellings (Mother) and Bobby Gene Strohmeyer (Father) were in a relationship.
- Mother became pregnant with C.S. during her relationship with Father.
- In December 1983, while pregnant, Mother married John Snellings (Husband).
- C.S. was born during Mother's marriage to Husband.
- Husband, as well as family, friends, and coworkers, knew that Husband was not the biological father of C.S. either before the child's birth or within two years thereafter.
- Husband consistently disputed his paternity of C.S. from the time of the child's birth.
- Mother and Husband raised C.S. together until their divorce in June of 1992, shortly before C.S.'s seventh birthday.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oklahoma, on behalf of Mother, filed a petition in the trial court to establish paternity and obtain child support from Father.
- The trial court ordered Father to submit to blood tests.
- The trial court found that the presumption of Husband's paternity was overcome, determined Father to be the biological parent of C.S., and ordered Father to pay child support and arrearages.
- Father (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Oklahoma Court of 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 the two-year statutory bar on challenging the legitimacy of a child born during a marriage prevent a paternity action against a biological father when the husband and wife, while raising the child, consistently and openly disputed the husband's paternity since the child's birth?
Opinions:
Majority - Joplin, J.
No. The statutory bar does not prevent the paternity action because the presumption of legitimacy was timely and consistently disputed. The statute requires a court to consider all elements, including whether the child was reared by the couple 'without disputing the child's legitimacy.' Here, there was ample evidence that Husband, Mother, and their community knew Husband was not the biological father and that Husband had disputed his paternity since the child's birth, as later recited in the divorce decree. This evidence of a timely dispute allowed the trial court to admit blood test evidence, which established Father's paternity with 99.46% probability and properly overcame the presumption that Husband was the father.
Dissenting - Garrett, C.J.
Yes. The statutory bar applies and the child's legitimacy may not be challenged. The plain language of 10 O.S.1991 § 3 requires that any dispute to a child's legitimacy must occur within two years. Since the couple raised the child together for well over two years, the presumption became conclusive and irrebuttable, barring this subsequent paternity action.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the two-year statutory bar on challenging a child's legitimacy under Oklahoma law is not absolute. The court interprets the phrase 'without disputing the child’s legitimacy' to include consistent, albeit informal, disputes of paternity. This prioritizes establishing biological parentage and financial support over a rigid application of the marital presumption, particularly when the parties to the marriage never held the child out as the husband's biological offspring. The ruling provides a pathway for paternity actions in cases where a legal challenge was not filed within two years but the husband's non-paternity was a known and accepted fact within the family.
