Young v. State ex rel. Department of Human Services
2005 OK CIV APP 58, 119 P.3d 1279 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative order establishing paternity based on a voluntary acknowledgment may be challenged and vacated at any time on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. Once vacated, such an order is a nullity and does not bar, through res judicata or collateral estoppel, a subsequent paternity action against a different individual.
Facts:
- Shirell Bell gave birth to twin boys on June 24, 1998.
- The next day, Phillip Johnson signed affidavits acknowledging he was the father of the twins.
- Bell gave birth to a daughter on September 3, 2000.
- Johnson never paid any child support for the twins.
- On June 6, 2001, Bell signed a statement declaring that Johnson was not the father of her twins and named Proctor Andrew Young as the father.
- Genetic tests were performed on Johnson, which excluded him as the father of the children.
- Subsequent genetic testing showed a 99.99% probability that Young is the father of all three of Bell's children.
- Bell testified that she and Young had engaged in sexual relations during the time periods when all three children were conceived.
Procedural Posture:
- Based on Phillip Johnson's acknowledgment of paternity for twins, the Department of Human Services (DHS) filed an Administrative Order for Support Payments against him on October 29, 1998.
- After Johnson failed to pay support, DHS filed an Application for Contempt Citation against him on March 18, 2001.
- Following genetic testing that excluded Johnson as the father, a DHS administrative law judge (ALJ) entered an Order to Vacate the support order against Johnson on July 30, 2001.
- DHS subsequently initiated administrative paternity proceedings against Proctor Andrew Young.
- Young filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the prior judgment against Johnson; the ALJ denied the motion on February 18, 2003.
- After a hearing, the ALJ found Young to be the father and ordered him to pay child support on October 15, 2008.
- Young filed a Petition for Review of the administrative order in the District Court.
- The District Court entered an Order Affirming the Administrative Order Establishing Paternity on July 12, 2004.
- Young, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision 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 a prior administrative order establishing paternity and child support against one man, which was later vacated based on exclusionary genetic testing, bar the state from subsequently initiating a paternity proceeding against another man for the same children?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Buettner
No. A prior, vacated paternity order does not bar the state from initiating a new paternity proceeding against another man. The order vacating Johnson's paternity was final and unappealed, rendering the original order a legal nullity. Therefore, there was no existing paternity judgment that could preclude the action against Young. Res judicata does not apply because Young was not a party to the original proceeding, and the issue of his paternity was never litigated. Furthermore, Oklahoma statutes specifically permit an acknowledgment of paternity to be rescinded at any time for fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, which occurred here when genetic tests proved Johnson was not the father. After correctly vacating the order against Johnson, the Department of Human Services (DHS) acted within its authority and duty to establish paternity by pursuing Young.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the legal system prioritizes establishing correct biological paternity for child support obligations over rigid adherence to the finality of judgments, especially when a prior judgment was based on a material mistake of fact. It clarifies that a vacated judgment is legally nonexistent and cannot be used as a shield by a third party to evade their own potential legal responsibilities. The case demonstrates that doctrines like res judicata do not protect a putative father who was a stranger to the original, erroneous paternity proceeding. This strengthens the state's ability to correct paternity records and pursue the actual biological father for support, ensuring the child's interests are paramount.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. State ex rel. Department of Human Services