Summary 2007 WY 54

Summary of Decision issued April 3, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: DNW v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services

Citation: 2007 WY 54

Docket Number: C-06-9

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge

Representing Appellant DNW (Respondent): George L. Simonton of Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (Petitioner): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee NJM (Respondent): No Appearance.

Guardian Ad Litem: Chris Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

Date of Decision: April 3, 2007

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it entered a Judgment and Order of Paternity in which it named the biological father of a child to be his legal father when the mother's ex-husband had executed and filed an affidavit with Wyoming Vital records Services acknowledging paternity. [Whether a divorce can disestablish an acknowledged paternity.]

Holdings: Wyo. Stat. 14-2-102 (2001) (c), (d) and (e) conclusively dictate the result in this case. There was a signed and filed an affidavit acknowledging paternity pursuant to subsection (c). That affidavit was not timely withdrawn, and there was never an attempt to prove that the affidavit was obtained as a result of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact. This acknowledged paternity is therefore final and conclusive. When the State and the district court learned of the existence of the affidavits, the paternity action against the biological father should have been dismissed. The provision of the parties' earlier divorce decree purporting to disestablish paternity was beyond the court's statutory authority and was, therefore, void.

The Order and Judgment of Paternity is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an order of dismissal.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Justice Hill dissents: Perpetuating a falsity does not outweigh the enormous preference that the law affords to ferreting out the truth. Undisputed DNA evidence that establishes that the father-by affidavit is not the child's biological father. The child is now over ten-years-old. His Father-By-Affidavit is no longer in the picture and has not been for over four years now. Child's birth certificate had been amended to show that he had no father at the time of trial. Father-By-Affidavit was relieved of the burden of his affidavit by the district court in a divorce decree and the Child's birth certificate was adjusted accordingly. That judgment was not appealed. The truth is the best result that can be reached in this case and the truth is not inconsistent with the best interests of the child. The district court's order should be affirmed in all respects.