What's happening
This bill allows alleged fathers to file paternity petitions even if another man signed an acknowledgment, adds necessary parties, and provides for vacating acknowledgments when paternity is disproven.
Why it matters
Ensures biological fathers have a legal pathway to establish paternity. even if another man has already signed an acknowledgment, which could prevent situations where the wrong person is legally recognized as the father due to prior paperwork.
Requires all potentially interested parties to be involved in paternity proceedings. , specifically mandating that any man who previously signed an acknowledgment of paternity must be named as a respondent if another man is seeking to establish paternity. This helps ensure that all parties’ rights and interests are considered and reduces the risk of conflicting legal claims.
Mandates the court to vacate (cancel) prior paternity acknowledgments when DNA or genetic testing disproves paternity. , thereby correcting the legal record and preventing someone from being held responsible for a child who is not biologically theirs.
Promotes the use of reliable genetic or DNA testing and clarifies when it should be applied to all relevant parties. , improving the accuracy of paternity determinations and protecting the interests of the child, the mother, and both potential fathers.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Update Paternity Petition Rules
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
Senator · Senate District 42
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Committed to rules
- Advanced to third reading
- 2nd report cal.
- 1st report cal.1323
- Referred to judiciary
Full text
3 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
8287
IN SENATE
April 26, 2018
Introduced by Sen. BONACIC -- (at request of the Office of Court Administration) -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to amend the family court act, in relation to standing to file paternity petitions, necessary parties in paternity cases and vacating acknowledgments of paternity
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 522 of the family court act, as amended by chapter 892 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
§ 522. Persons who may originate proceedings. Proceedings to establish the paternity of the child and to compel support under this article may be commenced by the mother, whether a minor or not, by a person alleging to be the father, whether a minor or not, by the child or child's guardian or other person standing in a parental relation or being the next of kin of the child, or by any authorized representative of an incorporated society doing charitable or philanthropic work, or if the mother or child is or is likely to become a public charge on a county, city or town, by a public welfare official of the county, city or town where the mother resides or the child is found. If a proceeding is originated by a public welfare official and thereafter withdrawn or dismissed without consideration on the merits, such withdrawal or dismissal shall be without prejudice to other persons. An alleged father may file a petition to establish paternity notwithstanding an acknowledgment of paternity signed by the mother and another man.
§ 2. Section 523 of the family court act, as amended by chapter 398 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
§ 523. Petition. Proceedings are commenced by the filing of a verified petition, alleging that the person named as respondent, or the petitioner if the petitioner is a person alleging to be the child's father, is or may be the father of the child and petitioning the court to issue a summons or a warrant, requiring the respondent to show cause why the court should not enter a declaration of paternity, an order of support, and such other and further relief as may be appropriate under the
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD14584-01-8
S. 8287 2
circumstances. The petition shall be in writing and verified by the petitioner. Any such petition for the establishment of paternity or the establishment, modification and/or enforcement of a child support obligation for persons not in receipt of family assistance, which contains a request for child support enforcement services completed in a manner as specified in section one hundred eleven-g of the social services law, shall constitute an application for such services. In the event that the mother signed an acknowledgement of paternity with a man other than the alleged father, the male signatory to the acknowledgment of paternity is a necessary party and must be named as a respondent.
§ 3. Section 524 of the family court act, as amended by chapter 59 of the laws of 1993 and subdivision (b) as amended by chapter 398 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
§ 524. Issuance of summons. (a) On receiving a petition sufficient in law commencing a paternity proceeding, the court shall cause a summons to be issued, requiring the respondent or respondents to show cause why the declaration of paternity, order of filiation, order of support and other and further relief prayed for by the petition should not be made.
(b) The summons shall contain or have attached thereto a notice stating: (i) that [the] a respondent's failure to appear shall result in the default entry of an order of filiation by the court upon proof of the respondent's actual notice of the commencement of the proceeding; and (ii) that a respondent's failure to appear may result in the suspension of his or her driving privileges; state professional, occupational and business licenses; and sporting licenses and permits.
§ 4. Subdivision (a) of section 532 of the family court act, as amended by chapter 214 of the laws of 1998, is amended to read as follows:
(a) The court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic marker tests or DNA tests and, on the court's own motion or the motion of any party, shall order the mother, her child [and], the alleged father, and, if appropriate, the male signatory to an acknowledgement of paternity to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests of a type generally acknowledged as reliable by an accreditation body designated by the secretary of the federal department of health and human services and performed by a laboratory approved by such an accreditation body and by the commissioner of health or by a duly qualified physician to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No such test shall be ordered, however, upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman. The record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section or pursuant to section one hundred eleven-k of the social services law shall be received in evidence by the court pursuant to subdivision (e) of rule forty-five hundred eighteen of the civil practice law and rules where no timely objection in writing has been made thereto and that if such timely objections are not made, they shall be deemed waived and shall not be heard by the court. If the record or report of the results of any such genetic marker or DNA test or tests indicate at least a ninety-five percent probability of paternity, the admission of such record or report shall create a rebuttable presumption of paternity, and shall establish, if unrebutted, the paternity of and liability for the support of a child pursuant to this article and article four of this act.
S. 8287 3
§ 5. Section 542 of the family court act is amended by adding a new subdivision (d) to read as follows:
(d) If the mother signed an acknowledgement of paternity with another man whom the court has determined is not the biological father of the child, the court shall make an order vacating the acknowledgement of paternity at the same time that it makes the order of filiation.
§ 6. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the family court act, in relation to standing to file paternity petitions, necessary parties in paternity cases and vacating acknowledgments of paternity
This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of his Family Court Advisory and Rules Committee.
Section 516-a of the Family Court Act provides for the recognition of and challenges to an acknowledgment of paternity (AOP) executed pursuant to section 111-k of the Social Services Law. Section 516-a(a) states that once executed and filed, an AOP establishes paternity without the necessity of any further judicial proceeding and is the equivalent of an order of filiation. Under section 516-a(b), only the signatories to an AOP have standing to petition to vacate it. This has led to confusion about whether a non-signatory to the AOP could ever seek a determination that he is the child's father. Since AOP's are generally executed in hospitals within days of a child's birth, even a non-signatory petition- er filing right away in Family Court may find that a legal father already exists.
Read the full memo (1,006 words)
This measure would amend the Family Court Act to clarify that a non-sig- natory to an AOP who comes forward alleging that he is the father has standing to file a paternity petition notwithstanding the existence of an AOP signed by another individual. In such a case, the signatory to the AOP is a necessary party and would have to be named as a respondent. If appropriate, Family Court would have discretion to order the male signatory to submit to DNA testing, in addition to the petitioner, moth- er and child. Finally, the court would be required to issue an order vacating the AOP where a non-signatory has been adjudged to be the father, even in the absence of a petition filed by a signatory. It should be noted that this measure does not change the law on equitable estoppel, so that an alleged father seeking paternity may still be barred by equitable estoppel. See, Stephen N. v. Amanda 0., 140 A.D.3d 1223 (3rd Dept., 2016).
This measure is consistent with the holdings of appellate courts that have stepped in to resolve the ambiguity. In Dwayne J.B. v. Santos H., 89 A.D.3d 838 (2nd Dept. 2011), the Appellate Division, Second Depart- ment, determined that a prior AOP "does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment." The Third and Fourth Departments have followed suit. See Stephen N. v. Amanda 0., 140 A.D.3d 1223 (3rd Dept., 2016); Frost v. Wisniewski, 126 A.D.3d 1305 (4th Dept., 2015). However, even in these cases, little guidance has been given to the Family Courts about what to do should a non-signatory be declared the father. In the absence of any statutory authority, many courts are loathe to issue any orders vacating the underlying AOPs unless a signatory has filed a petition to vacate. In cases in which one of the signatories did not initiate the proceeding, they are unlikely to file a petition to vacate the AOP. This measure would provide needed clarification by amending Family Court Act § 542 to provide that where the AOP signatory is determined not to be the father, the AOP must be vacated at the same time that a new order of filiation is issued.
The recent decision of the Family Court, in Matter of Emily R. v. Emilio R. and Juan Alexis C., 53 Misc.3d 325 (Fam. Ct., Bx. Co., 2017), illustrates and, in fact, suggests the need for enactment of this meas- ure. The mother, a teenager at the time of the child's birth, was involved with two men, one of whom joined the mother in signing an AOP right after the child's birth but soon became uninvolved both with the child and her mother. The other man, who was married and in his thirties when the child was born, developed a parental relationship with the child. The AOP signatory filed a petition to vacate the AOP but it was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The child's attorney filed a vacatur petition, but the Support Magistrate denied it since neither the mother nor the AOP signatory had a vacatur petition pending. Upon referral to a Family Court judge to adjudicate equitable estoppel issues, the judge noted that the limitation that only an AOP signatory may challenge an AOP is an "impediment to a non-signatory seeking to establish paterni- ty." Id., at 333. Noting that children's best interests are the para- mount concern in paternity proceedings, the judge stated that adjudi- cation of "the correct man" to be the child's father would be in her best interests:
(S)he is locked into a legal status in which she has a "legal father" whom everyone agrees is not her biological father, who does not support her, and who does not wish to pursue a relationship with her... Id., at 335.
The child, as well as her biological father, requested that this matter be corrected as she related to his children as her siblings and wanted to adopt his surname. Correction of her true paternity was also neces- sary to ensure her rights to inheritance, Social Security and continued visitation. In granting the relief, the Court stated: Given the ambigu- ities of the statutory scheme as it impacts practice and procedure, I write this decision so the attention might be paid for consideration by appropriate authorities to future refinements of the practice and the statute.
Id., at 336.
Adding the flexibility to Article 5 of the Family Court Act as recom- mended in this measure would fully address the problems identified in Emily R. and would better enable Family Court to fulfill its obligation to further children's best interests in its paternity decisions.
This measure, which would have no meaningful fiscal impact on the State, would take effect 90 days after it shall have become a law.
Legislative history
None. New proposal.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.