IN RE ANDREASIM M., pet-ap, v. MADELINE N., res-res

9260-9261-9262. IN RE ANDREASIM M., pet-ap, v. MADELINE N., res-res — Bonnie L. Mohr, New York, for ap — Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for res — TENNILLE M. TATUM-EVANS, NEW YORK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 21, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9260-9261-9262. IN RE ANDREASIM M., pet-ap, v. MADELINE N., res-res — Bonnie L. Mohr, New York, for ap — Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for res — TENNILLE M. TATUM-EVANS, NEW YORK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 21, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

The acknowledgment of paternity was not void because the mother was legally married at the time she and petitioner executed it, as nothing in Public Health Law §4135-b(2)(b) requires the mother to have been unmarried at the time the child was born. Assuming that petitioner demonstrated that he signed the acknowledgment of paternity under a mistake of fact, the Family Court was required to conduct a hearing on the best interests of the child before ordering a genetic marker test (see Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Robert W.R., 25 AD3d 62, 69-71 [2d Dept 2005]), and properly determined that it was not in the child’s best interests on the basis of equitable estoppel to order genetic marker tests (Family Ct Act §516-[a][b] [ii]). A man who mistakenly represents himself as a child’s father may be equitably stopped from denying paternity, and made to pay child support, when the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity, to the child’s detriment because it is shown that a parent-child relationship has developed between the two (see Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 324, 327 [2006]).

IN RE ANDREASIM M., pet-ap, v. MADELINE N., res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal