State v. Cross
Trial court reversed in action to void a VPA for failing to afford an evidentiary hearing.
In Re the Paternity of W.B.
Dismissal of action seeking genetic testing can be without prejudice.
In Re Paternity of ARR
Legislature, in enacting §767.863(1m), did not intend to allow parties to circumvent a court’s authority to dismiss paternity actions at the initial stage of the proceeding based on the child’s best interest by obtaining genetic testing without court approval.
Hendrick v. Hendrick
Trial court did not err in finding that marital presumption was overcome where (a) husband had abandoned the child (b) bio-dad never requested evidentiary hearing on best interests and under Wis. Stats. §767.863(2), ordering tests was mandatory.
In re the Paternity of T.J.D.C.
While child was born prior to marriage and parents failed to complete the Acknowledgment of a Marital Child form, the State was obligated to file a paternity action, per Wis. Stats. §767.80(1). Although Respondent was the presumed father per Wis. Stats. §891.41(1), by failing to acknowledge paternity, the state was obligated to file the action.
Rusk County DHSS v. Thorson
Court cannot order a father to pay lying-in expenses when he has no current ability to pay. If the ability to pay changes, the order may be modified.
In Re the Paternity of Demetrius A.Y.:Shanee Y.
Court cannot order a father to pay lying-in expenses when he has no current ability to pay. If the ability to pay changes, the order may be modified.
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) §767.463 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.
Randy A.J. v. Norma L.J.
Husband is equitable parent of minor child and trial court properly awarded him custody. Presumption in favor of natural parent can be overcome by evidence that the marital father has so bonded with the child to be considered the equitable parent. (Affirmed)
Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W.
Court only has authority to create a child support obligation directly in favor of a person who is less than 19 years old and is pursuing a high school diploma at the time the action is commenced.
Brad Michael L. v. Lee D.
Ordering payment of past child support does not violated ex post factor rules. Court could order child support even though father was not aware of child’s existence for the first 15 years of the child’s life.
Thomas M.P. v. Kimberly J.L.
Alleged father has the right to a determination of paternity regardless of the circumstances out of which paternity may have arisen. Court erred in ordering a best interests hearing where mother claimed sexual assault.
Amber J.F. v. Richard B.
Res judicata, collateral estoppel and claim preclusion do not bar a child from bringing an action for paternity where earlier action by mother resulted in jury finding of nonpaternity. Child was not a party to or in privity with mother in earlier action.
Mayonia M.M. v. Keith N.
Dismissal of paternity action brought by district attorney does not preclude child from bringing her own action through her GAL.
In Re Paternity of Taylor R.T.
Summary judgment should not be granted either when the period of conception has not been established or when there is sufficient evidence that an untested male had sex with mother during the conceptive period.
In Re Paternity of Chad M.G.
Summary judgment should not be granted either when the period of conception has not been established or when there is sufficient evidence that an untested male had sex with mother during the conceptive period.
In Re Paternity of James A. O.
Statute of limitations for starting paternity action expires 19 years after birth of child and is not unconstitutional.
In Re Paternity of Cheyenne D.L.
In case where mother was receiving AFDC, but father was living with her and child and support child: (1) Court has discretion to credit the putative father for support prior to adjudication of paternity (2) “Manifest injustice” test under Schultz v. Ystad does not apply (3) It would be inequitable to require retroactive payments to a time father was already support the child.
In Re Paternity of C.L.L.
Wisconsin paternity action not barred on ground of full faith and credit to Kentucky divorce because Kentucky law would allow collateral attack to presumption of paternity.
In Re Paternity of Tiffany B.
(1) Court can enter default judgment when respondent did not appear at trial (2) Court can assess costs of expert witnesses against respondent.