In Re Marriage of L.M.S. v. S.L.S.
Husband has duties and responsibilities of father when he consents to his wife having intercourse and becoming pregnant by another man on contract theory and by promissory estoppel.
In Re Paternity of D.L.H.
Equitable estoppel is available as a defense to the mother’s institution of paternity proceedings where her husband acquired rights under an “equitable parent” theory. A trial court cannot dismiss a paternity action without the consent of all parties.
C.A.B. v. K.A.T.
A man who held himself out as child’s father may be equitably estopped from denying paternity.
In Re Marriage of D.L.J.
Mother is equitably estopped from contesting child’s paternity where mother actively fostered child’s relationship with husband.
Randy A.J. v. Norma L.J.
(1) Biological father does not have a constitutionally protected interest because of failure to establish a substantial relationship with the child (2) ยง767.463 cannot be used once genetic tests have been done (3) Equitable parenting doctrine cannot be used in paternity determinations and (4) Mother and biological father are equitably estopped from asserting the genetic tests results to rebut the martial presumption.
In Re Paternity of D.L.T.
Statute of limitations in effect at the time state started action for paternity applies and was not removed by subsequent amendment.
Gerhardt v. Estate of Moore
Lump sum payment in paternity action is res judicata for future support. Note: holding later reversed.
In Re Paternity of A.M.C.
(1) Judgment reversed where trial court erroneously interpreted the statistical testimony of the expert and afforded the erroneous interpretation substantial weight. (2) Finder of fact can find that intercourse occurred on a different date than that asserted by mother. Finder can believe one part of the testimony and disbelieve another part.
In Re Paternity of M.J.B.
(1) Independent determination of sexual intercourse need not be made prior to jury considering statistical likelihood of paternity. Occurrence of intercourse is not an independent determination – it is an element of the case. (2) Blood test report is admissible into evidence without an expert witness testifying as to its assumptions.
In Re Paternity of M.A.V.
(1) It was error (although harmless here) for the court to allow mother to testify that she had not had intercourse with anyone other than the defendant where she had in fact had intercourse with men excluded by the blood test. (2) Directed verdict against defendant was proper even where acquitted by jury.