 |
Does the state of Tennessee have a statue of limitations on proving paternity? I am an adult child and would like to sue a man for a paternity test. I never knew intil recently where my possible father lives. Recently I did find him but he denies ever knowing my mother.
Not that I know of, in most cases if in probate there is a question, it can be done to prove you are a hier.
But new case law is written every day somewhere, so you can always try.
Also while maybe not ethical, you can see about hiring a PI to try and get some DNA from him,
Actually TN does have a statute of limitations in regards to this issue. The statue states
36-2-306. Statute of limitations
(a) An action to establish the parentage of a child may be instituted before or after the birth of the child and until three (3) years beyond the child's age of majority. The provisions of this chapter shall not affect the relationship of parent and child as established in Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 31-2-105.
(b) An action to establish parentage may be brought on behalf of a child in whose behalf a paternity action could have been brought under this chapter on August 16, 1984, but for whom no such action was brought, or for whom a paternity action was brought but was dismissed because the previous more restrictive statute of limitations was then in effect. Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the filing of any paternity action after the statute of limitations established by subsection (a).
There are special rules that apply to that piece of law. So in this case it may not be applicable at all. Also your posting an answer to a very old post.
Actually the only "special rules" that apply to the piece of law is that a child can sue for paternity after the father is deceased, in probate, (which is added into the statute that I posted) BUT... it also requires proof established prior to his death or thereafter that the child is indeed his biological child. Such issues have been raised in the court of appeals in TN and the Supreme Court of TN and the child has been unsuccessful because the biological mother's statement and even letters between the biological parents were not sufficient evidence to prove paternity. Now if there is further information that you have that you would like to share, that neither I nor any attorney I have contacted could find I would GREATLY appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
I am very aware of the law regarding this issue in the state of TN because I have been fighting the same battle for 14 years. What the poster said was that she was an adult child wanting to force a man to submit to a DNA test and that the alleged father is claiming he never knew her/his mother. Current laws do not allow that past the statute of limitations and actually one woman made the deadline but they still rejected her claim. I am in the same position as the poster - an adult child born out of wedlock seeking a DNA test. My father doesn't make such claims as the OP's does but he does state that I "may not be his child". The ONLY remedy is to take the issue to the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Yes, that can be done and the TN statute violates the 14th Amendment of all illegitimate children BUT got $100K to spend??
Lastly, I am very aware of when the post was made, there is a date stamp, but adding further information can assist others in the same position so why not share it?
While your information was helpful, the problem is that the question was asked nearly 3 years ago. By posting the info now, it brings this old question to the first page of the Family Law forum rather than leave it on an old page. The OP has never returned to the site and again, while your information is helpful, it is specifically for the state of TN - not nationwide.Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
I certainly get your point about the post being bumped to the front and I did not intend or think about that happening when I did. I simply wanted to add additional information because the site had pulled up as one of the first (if not first) page when I was googling about this information. I thought it was harmless to add the additional information to the question so that others doing a search and finding that question posed would get the straight answer right away. I should have added that it was a constitutional issue straight away so that others across the country would know should they also live in a state with limitations placed on paternity cases(most do). So I meant no harm by my posting but I get what you are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by this8384
No harm done :) We just wanted to let you know; that happens to a lot of people. They Google their question, a pertinent question comes up and they never think to look at the date. But now you know and as I said, no harm done.Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
Welcome to the site!
Instead of starting with a statement like: This is some information that might help. You made a choice to answer the OP's question. What that does is open everything up and if there are questions. With a 3 year old post its not likely they are going to get answer as to if it is relative or not. Because special rules apply to this there is no way of knowing if the op fits them. Its not that the information isn't appreciated it's the way in which it is handled. How much of what you posted actually applies in this case can only be answered by the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
Geepers, This is just a long unanswered question in every state where the child has no rights as an adult to prove paternity. You would think someone would start a petition or write to representatives that we need the law changed to give rights to these children!
Unfortunately, the law is what it is. If we want it changed, then we need to take the first step.Quote:
Originally Posted by wsranch
The problem with this particular issue, however, is that in order to grant rights to one individual we would be infringing on the rights of another.
It is not so easy….
The first question is whether a child has or does not have a presumed father.
There are UPA/ Uniform Parentage Act/ and UPC/Uniform Probate Code/, but not all states have adopted them.
States adopted both UPA and UPC- Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Mew Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah.
States adopted only UPC- Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota
Swtates adopted only UPA- Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada,Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
Tennessee has never accepted neither UPA nor UPC.
Thus, state law remains inconsistent in this area
Under UPA section 606, if a child does not have a presumed father, there is no statute of limitations in a proceeding to establish paternity. The UPA is clear that a child with no presumed father has standing to initiate an adjudication of paternity at any time, even after the child becomes an adult.
A possible argument against this reading of the UPA, in the context of inheritance law, is that it could allow an undeserving heir to inherit from a biological father who the child may never even have known
The UPC
The purpose of the UPC is to simplify and clarify most aspects of probate law; to effectuate the intent of a decedent in the distribution of his property; to promote timely and efficient estate distribution; to facilitate the use and enforcement of certain trusts; and to unify the laws of various jurisdictions. The UPC provides guidelines for defining the parent-child relationship that can be particularly helpful in analyzing cases in which determining paternity is central to establishing intestate inheritance rights.UPC section 2-114(a) provides that, for purposes of intestate succession, an individual is the child of his or her natural parents regardless of their marital status.This provision clarifies that a nonmarital child has the same rights to inherit from an intestate father's estate as a marital child. While section 2-114(a) allows a child an unqualified right to intestate succession by, through, or from his
Natural parents, section 2-114(c) precludes a parent from inheriting from the child unless that parent has openly treated the child as his or her own and has not refused to support that child.
But there may arise some conflicts.
Let's see a hypothetical case.
Jane is married to John but she had an adulterous affair with James, conceived Joan who is James's biological child and John's legal child. . Thus, if John dies without a will, Joan will inherit from his estate under the laws of intestate succession. However, if James dies without a will, and Joan can prove that he is her biological father, can she inherit from his estate as well? In other words, is the fact of biology for purposes of intestate inheritance?/ Do not forget: “California law, like nature itself, makes no provision for dual fatherhood”-justice Scalia, Michael H. v. Gerald D. 491 U.S. 110, 118 (1989)/
States have applied inconsistent solutions to resolve these issues
Some states treat the fact of biology as dispositive in establishing paternity and allow a child with a presumed father to inherit from a separate biological father's intestate estate,
Regardless of whether the biological parent had a role in the child's upbringing
Other states are more restrictive and preclude a child to claim for inheritance from his/her biological father.
Both of these approaches can lead to undesirable results
One of the principal goals of intestacy law is to effectuate the decedent's likely intent in the distribution of his property.Consequently, it makes sense that a decedent would intend his estate to pass to a child he actively raised and nurtured within his family. On the other hand, it is less logical to presume that a decedent would intend to pass his estate to a child he may not even have known, simply on account of a biological connection or legal presumption.
Let's see some court cases:
Wingate v. Estate of Ryan- New Jersey Supreme Court
In Wingate, the court held that the Parentage Act's twenty-three-year statute of limitations did not apply to a thirty-one year old claimant who sought to prove paternity and heirship under the Probate Code. When the claimant Joanne Wingate was born, her mother was married to Willard Wingate, whom she believed was her natural father until well after his
Death in 1988.149 In 1995 Joanne learned that another man, John Ryan, was her biological father. Ryan died shortly after Joanne learned the truth about her paternity.The day after Ryan's death, Joanne filed a claim under the Probate Code to establish that she was an heir to Ryan's intestate estate. Although her paternity action was barred under the Parentage Act's statute of limitations, Joanne contended that action should be determined under the Probate Code, which was not subject to the same statute of limitations. The court concluded that the Parentage Act's statute of limitations did not apply to probate actions because the two statutes were designed to address different primary rights. The Parentage Act was intended
To address child support and other parental obligations while the Probate Code functioned to determine who is entitled to share in a decedent's Estate
See also
Estate of Martignacco, 689 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. 2004) (holding that the Parentage Act is not the exclusive means by which to establish paternity for purposes of intestate
Succession, and that the statute of limitations found in the Parentage Act does not apply in probate cases); Estate of Rogers, 81 P.3d. 1190 (Haw. 2003) (holding that “for purposes of intestate succession, a purported heir may establish his or her parent-child relationship with the decedent by any means permitted by statute, including, but not limited to the [UPA]”); Taylor v. Hoffman, 544 S.E.2d 387 (W. Va. 2001) (holding that “[l]imitations provisions included within the paternity statute are inapplicable to a civil action by a child born out of wedlock seeking to inherit from his or her father”);
In re Nocita, 914 S.W.2d 358 (Mo. 1996) (holding that “[b]ecause the legislature passed the Parentage Act without conforming the Probate Code, the General Assembly refused to make the Parentage Act the exclusive means to establish paternity for probate”);
Lewis v. Schneider, 890 P.2d 148 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that the statute of limitations contained in the UPA did not preclude the petitioner from establishing paternity under Colorado's probate code);
In re Estate of Greenwood, 587 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1991) (holding that “the 'right to
Inherit' in the case of intestacy is reserved exclusively to the probate code” and that there is “no reason to look solely to the support statute in evaluating the right of an illegitimate to inherit by intestate succession, nor the statute of limitations contained therein for doing so”); Ellis v. Ellis, 752 S.W.2d 781 (Ky. 1988) (holding that Kentucky's parentage act “bears no relationship to the laws governing intestate succession,” including statutes of limitations, in cases “where no action has been brought under the [parentage act]”).
Under the California Probate Code, a parent-child relationship is established pursuant to the state's version of the UPA
However, if that child subsequently seeks to establish her biological father's paternity for heirship purposes after his death, she must do so under the Probate Code. The Probate Code stipulates that a child who does not have a presumed father, or whose presumed father has died, can only initiate a paternity proceeding if one of the following conditions is met:
1.a court order was entered during the father's lifetime declaring paternity;
2.paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence that the father has openly held the child out as his own
3.or it was impossible for the father to hold the child out as his own and paternity is established by clear and convincing evidence
The language of the statute indicates that some type of relationship must exist before the child can inherit from the biological father's intestate estate.
New York case law is split on this issue. In In re Estate of Janis, the court held that genetic testing must be administered during a putative father's lifetime for the results to be admissible to establish paternity in an heirship proceeding.
In In re Estate of Bonanno, the court held that posthumous genetic test results could be admitted to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence requirement of 4-1.2(a)(2)(C)
In order to prove paternity in heirship claims
Furthermore, in In re Estate of Morningstar, the court held that there is no basis in the statute
For requiring a party to first demonstrate that a decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity before genetic testing may proceed pursuant to section 4-1.2(a)(2)(C).
However, the court in In re Estate of Davis held the opposite, stating that such open and notorious acknowledgment of paternity was necessary before genetic testing should be
Granted. In Davis The court stated that 4-1.2(a)(2)(C) was not created to grant rights to all non-marital children, but only those who were known to the decedent and were openly acknowledged by him during his lifetime
.
Similar cases were decided/Trimble, Lalli v.Lalli/ by the Supreme Court of the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
A claim will be unsuccessful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GentleBreeze
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
Let me see...
Legally thinking the main purpose of Paternity establishment is to set rights and obligations with regard to a child incl. custody, child support,visitation , etc.
The domestic relations/family law/parent-child relationship /Tn Code 36-2-306. Statute of limitations/ is drafted to resolve paternity issues for purposes of cudtody and child support.
If the "child" is 40 or 50 years of age,there is no custody/support issues.Thus both Tn Appelate and Tn Supreme courts are right.
In my point of view it is a stupid act to seek paternity establishment for adult "child" citing Domestic relations.
You may check whether a "DECLARATORY JUDGMENT" under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is recognized in Tennessee.
A "suit for declaratory judgment" is a lawsuit in which you ask the court to exam the case facts and render a judgment declaring "rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." Further, "the declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree."
A declaratory judgment proceeding involves far more than merely a judicial opinion.it results in a binding judicial determination that declares the parties' STATUS and LEGAL RELATIONSHIP to one another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngal77
I do not like to be rude but in my view 90% of all attorneys are incompetent and they only want your money:eek::eek:
I'm going to close this thread. There are good reasons we prefer not to revive old threads.
While I understand Southerngal's reasons for replying the fact is your response does not take into account the full impact of the laws you refer to.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 AM. |