Hello everyone!
A child was born in marriage but the husband was not the father.The bio-father appeared and disestablished husband's presumption under UPA in Court.After that the bio-father decided he did not like to pay court ordered recoupment and damages to the husband because he did not have enough money for it.The mother also wanted her husband as a legal father of her child.The question is:May the bio-father and the mother to appeal this court decision in higher court without an agreement of the husband?
The case is not real but I appreciate every opinion.
Thank you in advance.

George_1950

I am attempting to understand the facts as presented. The bio-father filed a petition to determine paternity and 'won', after which he was ordered to compensate the husband of the mother (the presumptive father), and most likely ordered to pay child support. Since he was the plaintiff and 'won', and obtained the relief he requested, he most likely lacks standing to appeal. Also, I do not believe the husband had to be a party to the paternity action. Finally, I don't believe there would be an appeal from the bio-father's liability, but he may have grounds to appeal the amount of damages and/or child support.

GV70

Thank you,George 1950!
According to the law the husband has to be a party to the paternity action because there are two presumptions there. I agree that "the winner" cannot pursue an appeal there.
I was interested in whether someone knew about "Best interest of the child" in such cases.

George_1950

Yes, I understand there are two presumptions and the husband should be a party because he is the presumptive father; how modern of me to think otherwise!
I don't see the 'best interest of the child' coming into consideration with respect to custody because that is a matter of scientific evidence, rather that behavior patterns.
I mis-spoke in the last sentence; where I wrote "custody", should be "paternity". So that the last sentence says, "I don't see the 'best interest of the child' coming into consideration with respect to paternity because that is a matter of scientific evidence, rather that behavior patterns."

GV70

A case from California:
In re Kiana A. (2001) , Cal.App.4th
In juvenile dependency proceedings, Mario A. and Kevin W. each petitioned the juvenile court to be declared the presumptive father of Kiana A...
DISCUSSION-The Uniform Parentage Act.
a. The conclusive presumption of section 7540.
b. Rebuttable presumptions of section 7611.
Although more than one individual may fulfill the criteria that give rise to a presumption of paternity, there can be only one presumed father. (Brian C. v. Ginger K. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1223.)
Where the evidence shows that more than one man qualifies as a presumptive father, section 7612, subdivision (b), directs the trial court to weigh the competing presumptions. It states: "If two or more presumptions arise under Section 7611 which conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic controls." (§ 7612, subd. (b).)

GV70

More than 30 states have similar to this case provisions.

George_1950

But paternity should depend upon scientific evidence, should it not? The DNA test doesn't lie, does it?

GV70

Maybe...but DNA does not make a dad.
I may divide those by paternity and parentage. I am impressed by a case posted on the board.

califdadof3

In alot of states so long as the pregnancy began during the marriage then the presumed father is the husband. It makes sense that its like that and one of the few laws that atleast you can understand why it goes down that way.