Time Limit on Challenging an Acknowledgment of Paternity in Arizona
Posted on : January 24, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Time Limit on Challenging an Acknowledgment of Paternity in Arizona
When a child is born to an unmarried mother, she can establish paternity utilizing an acknowledgment of paternity. This document, duly signed and filed, is presumed valid but can be rescinded or challenged. Both rescission and challenge are subject to legal time limits. Can the court extend these time limits when paternity is uncertain and has been uncertain for months? In Andrew R. v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Security, 224 P.3d 950 (2010) the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed this issue.
Facts and Procedure
In 2007, when the mother was 17 years old, she had a child. Mother eventually began living with the father. They signed an acknowledgment of paternity that named the child’s father. A new birth certificate was issued naming the father.
In 2008, mother, father and the child moved in with mother’s brother. Father moved out in mid-March, and a new boyfriend moved in. A few weeks later, the occupants were evicted.
In April 2008, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) filed a dependency petition. It charged that mother was unable to parent the child due to an unfit home and cocaine abuse. ADES also alleged that father was unable to parent the child due to drug addiction.
At the hearing, the juvenile court found the child dependent as to the mother. The court issued a preliminary protective order placing the child in the legal custody of ADES and the physical custody of mother’s mother (grandmother).
Arizona’s Time Limit to Challenge an Acknowledgment of Paternity.
On April 28, 2008, the juvenile court held a dependency hearing regarding father. He admitted that he might not be the child’s biological father. However, he argued that he was the child’s legal father because of the acknowledgment of paternity. Father asked for a lot of visitation with the child. He also participated in parent aide services, substance abuse assessment/treatment, and substance abuse testing.
At the pretrial conference on June 11, 2008, ADES agreed to put the child in father’s custody. However, mother and the child’s guardian ad litem objected and requested a paternity test. The court set an evidentiary hearing for June 25, 2008.
At the hearing, the parties discussed changing physical custody of the child to father or mother. The juvenile court scheduled a hearing on changing the physical custody of the child.
On August 1, 2008, the mother filed a “Notice of Request for Relief from Judgment of Paternity” according to Rule 60(c). She claimed that paternity was established fraudulently and under duress. Father moved to dismiss this as untimely, but the court denied the motion. The parties submitted written closing arguments.
The child’s guardian ad litem supported mother’s request for relief, and ADES helped father. ADES also moved for a change in physical custody of the child to the father.
The juvenile court granted mother’s Rule 60(c) request for relief from the presumption of paternity. It denied ADES’s motion for change of custody to the father. Mother’s Rule 60(c) motion was not filed until August 1, 2008. However, the court ruled it timely because the contention that father was not the father was raised at earlier hearings.
The court held that relief was appropriate because the parties signed the acknowledgment of paternity without believing he was the father. Father appealed.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Arizona law allows the parent of a child born to an unmarried couple to establish paternity in a variety of ways. One way is to file a notarized acknowledgment of paternity. This voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is presumed valid and binding unless proven otherwise.
Rescinding or Challenging Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity
A voluntary acknowledgment of paternity properly executed and filed has the same force and effect as a superior court judge. Either parent can rescind the acknowledgment for any reason within 60 days of signing.
Here, the mother could have revoked the acknowledgment within 60 days of December 14, 2007. After the 60 days, you can only challenge the acknowledgment of paternity by claiming fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The person challenging it bears the burden of proof.
Time Limit on Challenging an Acknowledgment of Paternity in Arizona.
Under Rule 60(c) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, this must be made within six months of the acknowledgment date. Here, mother moved under Rule 60(c)(3), her motion for relief was not timely. It was filed on August 1, 2008. This was more than six months after the acknowledgment of paternity was executed on December 14, 2007.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court’s rationale for extending the six-month time limit. Although father’s paternity was discussed throughout the dependency proceedings, that does not satisfy Rule 60(c)(3). The Rule requires that a motion is filed within the six-month period.
Had mother and father wished to establish paternity through genetic testing before acknowledging paternity, they could have done so. They did not do so. At some point in time, a child’s need for permanency must outweigh the ability of a party who has acknowledged paternity to challenge that acknowledgment. The limitation provided by the Rules fill this need.
The Court of Appeals vacated the juvenile court’s orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. That includes reconsideration of the motion for a change of physical custody to the father.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News