Case Title: DNW V. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; and STATE OF WYOMING ex rel., NSM, Minor Child and NJM

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-06-9

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
DNW V. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; and STATE OF WYOMING ex rel., NSM, Minor Child and NJM2007 WY 54154 P.3d 990Case Number: C-06-9Decided: 04/03/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
DNW,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE OFWYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; and 
STATE OF WYOMING ex rel., NSM, Minor 
Child,

 
 
Appellees

(Petitioners),

 
 
and

 
 
NJM,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofParkCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

George 
L. Simonton of Cody, 
Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
    
Appellee    
State of     
Wyoming, Department of Family 
Services:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan 
Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney 
General.  Argument by Ms. 
Rutledge.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee NJM:

No 
Appearance.

 
 

Guardian 
Ad Litem:

Chris 
Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC the Cody, Wyoming Division of Burg 
Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

Voigt, 
c.j., 
delivers the opinion of the Court.  Hill, J., files a dissenting 
opinion.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a Judgment and Order of Paternity in which the district court adjudicated 
the biological father of a child to be his legal father.  We reverse because the mother's former 
husband had already been determined to be, and remained, the child's legal 
father.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Under the 
circumstances of this case, did the divorce between NJM and MDG disestablish 
MDG's status as NSM's legal father?1

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      NJM gave birth to 
NSM on December 1, 1996, at a time that NJM was unmarried.  No father was listed on NSM's birth 
certificate.  On January 8, 1998, 
NJM married MDG.  NJM and NSM lived 
with MDG, and MDG held himself out to be NSM's father.  In addition, NJM wrote to Wyoming Vital 
Records Services on January 7, 1999, imparting the following 
information:

 
 
            
This letter is regarding my sons birth certificate, the 
father and myself was not married at the time of the birth so his name was not 
placed on the certificate, and the child did not receive his fathers last 
name.  I would like to do this 
now.

 
 
            
The child's full name as it appears on the birth certificate is as 
follows.

 
 
1.   [NSM]

2.   Birth date  December 1, 1996

3.   Birth place.  PowellHospital, Powell 
WY. 
ParkCounty.

 
 
            
I would like to change his last name on the certificate so his name reads 
as follows.

 
 
1.   [NSG].

 
 
            
Here is the fathers name and the place of 
marriage.

 
 
1.   [MDG].

2.   Birth date, May 12, 
1963

3.   Birth place, Powell 
WY. 
ParkCounty

4.   We were married on January 9, 
1998

5.   We were married in Powell WY., 
ParkCounty

 
 
(Quoted 
verbatim; emphasis added.) 

 
 
[¶4]      Following this 
letter, NJM and MDG each obtained from Wyoming's Vital Records Services, and each executed and 
filed, a document entitled "State of Wyoming Affidavit 
Acknowledging Paternity and 
Statement Determining Child's Surname."  
In his affidavit, MDG recited that, "I hereby acknowledge that I am 
the natural father of the child named above, and request that my name be 
entered on the birth certificate as the father of this child."  (Emphasis added.)  Both NJM and MDG acknowledged receipt of 
"written and oral notice of the legal rights and consequences resulting from" 
the affidavit.  The form affidavit 
contained, inter alia, the following 
"warnings":

 
 
1.   The purpose of the form is to 
establish legal paternity when the parents of a child are not 
married.

 
 
2.   Either parent may be court ordered 
to pay child support for the child.

 
 
3.   A correctly completed affidavit has 
the same effect as a court order establishing paternity.

 
 
4.   Either party may bring a court 
order to rescind the affidavit within sixty days of the date it is signed, but 
thereafter the affidavit may be challenged in very limited 
circumstances.

 
 
Upon the 
filing of these affidavits, NSM's birth certificate was amended to reflect MDG 
as his father, and to change his name to NSG.

 
 
[¶5]      MDG, NJM, and NSM 
lived together as a family until NJM filed for divorce on January 16, 2002.  In her divorce Complaint, NJM averred 
that MDG was NSM's "presumed" father under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-102(a)(iv) 
(LexisNexis 2001) because MDG had received NSM into his home and openly held him 
out as his natural child, but did not mention the affidavits that had been 
signed and filed by MDG and NJM.  On 
August 29, 2002, however, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Property 
Settlement Agreement that stated, to the contrary, as 
follows:

 
 
3.   As stated above, [NJM] admits that 
[MDG] is not the father of [NSM] even though he is designated as the child's 
father on [NSM's] Birth Certificate issued by Vital Records Services, Department 
of Health and Medical Services State of Wyoming.  Both parties acknowledge that [NSM's] original Birth Certificate is 
incorrect and [MDG's] name needs to be removed as [NSM's] father from the original Birth Certificate and a new 
Birth Certificate filed leaving the name of [NSM's] father blank.  [NJM] and [MDG] agree to cooperate and 
sign whatever documents are necessary in order to make this change on [MSN's] 
Birth Certificate.  [NJM] shall be 
responsible for preparation of all necessary documents to obtain a new birth 
certificate and for all associated costs.  
Additionally, as [MDG] is not the natural or presumed father 
of [NSM], [MDG] is not responsible for any support of 
[NSM].

 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)

 
 
[¶6]      This Stipulation 
and Property Settlement Agreement was incorporated into a Judgment and Decree of 
Divorce that was filed on October 21, 2002.  The decree contained the following as one 
of its findings:

 
 
4.   Even though [NJM] alleged in her 
Complaint that the parties had one minor child, [NSM], born December 1, 1996, 
she now admits that [MDG] is neither the natural or presumed father of the 
child.  Before the parties marriage 
[NSM] was known as [NSM] and his surname of [M] should now be 
restored.

 
 
Based 
upon that finding, the court ordered as follows:

 
 
3.   The Birth Certificate filed for 
[NSM], born December 1, 1996, is incorrect and [MDG's] name needs to be removed 
as the child's father from the Birth Certificate previously issued by the Vital 
Records Services, Department of Health and Medical Services State of 
Wyoming.  A new Birth Certificate 
for [NSM] shall then be filed leaving the name of his father blank.  The new Birth Certificate shall also 
reflect that the child's surname will again be [M] and after this Decree is 
entered, the child shall be known as [NSM].

 
 
[¶7]      Consistent with 
that decree, the State of Wyoming issued [NSM] a new birth certificate 
on November 22, 2002, with no one named as father.  Within four months, NJM had applied for 
assistance, and the State of Wyoming filed a Petition to Establish 
Paternity and Support, naming DNW as NSM's father.  Genetic testing proved that DNW was, 
indeed, NSM's biological father.  In 
the paternity action, the State, DNW, and NJM all stipulated that DNW and NJM 
had had a "one night's stand," that resulted in NJM's pregnancy, that DNW had 
never been told of NSM's birth, that DNW had never had any relationship or 
interaction with NSM, and that NSM had not known that DNW, rather than MDG, was 
his biological father.  DNW 
contested the paternity action based on both the statutory affidavit of 
paternity and the statutory presumption of paternity resulting from MDG's living 
with and holding out NSM to be his child.  
The district court ruled against DNW, primarily upon its reading of GDK v. State, Dep't of Family Services, 
2004 WY 78, 92 P.3d 834 (Wyo. 2004), and that case's emphasis upon genetic 
testing and the best interest of the child.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶8]      The facts of this 
case are not in dispute.  The 
question before the Court is fundamentally a question of statutory construction, 
which is a question of law reviewed de 
novo.  Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson, 
2006 WY 38, ¶ 6, 131 P.3d 369, 373 (Wyo. 2006).  Where, as here, the statute at issue is 
unambiguous, we ascertain legislative intent by giving effect to the plain and 
ordinary meaning of the words used.  
Id.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-2-102 (LexisNexis 2001)

 
 
[¶9]      The State filed 
this paternity action on March 7, 2003.  
The Wyoming Parentage Act was amended in 2003, with the proviso that 
actions commenced before July 1, 2003 were to be governed by the law in effect 
at the time proceedings were commenced.  
2003 Wyo. Sess. Laws 230.  The pertinent statute in effect at that 
time was Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-102 (LexisNexis 2001), the full text of 
which is as follows, with emphasis added as appropriate:

 
 
(a)    A man is presumed to be the 
natural father of a child if:

 
 
(i)      He and the 
child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is 
born during the marriage, or within three hundred (300) days after the marriage 
is terminated by death, annulment or divorce or after a decree of separation is 
entered by a court; or

 
 
(ii)     Before the child's 
birth, he and the child's natural mother attempted to marry each other by a 
marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted 
marriage is or could be declared invalid, and:

 
 
(A)     If the attempted 
marriage could be declared invalid only by a court, the child is born during the 
attempted marriage or within three hundred (300) days after its termination by 
death, annulment or divorce; or

 
 
(B)     If the attempted 
marriage is invalid without a court order, the child is born within three 
hundred (300) days after the termination of cohabitation; 
or

 
 
(iii)    After the child's birth, he 
and the child's natural mother married or attempted to marry each other by a 
marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted 
marriage is or could be declared invalid and he is obligated to support the 
child under a written voluntary promise or by court order; 
or

 
 
(iv)    While the child is under the age of 
majority, he receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as 
his natural child.

 
 
(b)    A presumption under 
subsection (a) of this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by 
clear and convincing evidence.  If 
two (2) or more presumptions under subsection (a) of this section arise which 
conflict with each other, the presumption which on the facts is founded on the 
weightier considerations of policy and logic controls.  A 
presumption under subsection (a) of this section is rebutted by a court 
decree establishing paternity of the child by another man or, after the court finds by clear and 
convincing evidence that the child was not born of the marriage, by a divorce 
decree expressly declaring the child was not born of the 
marriage.

 
 
(c)    A 
man is considered the natural father of a child born in Wyoming if, with the 
consent of the mother, he has acknowledged his paternity by signing an affidavit 
of paternity including his social security number and an acknowledgment 
of the privileges and obligations associated with parentage and filed these 
documents with the state office of vital records.  The consent of the mother shall include 
an affidavit with her social security number, stating that she was not married 
at the time of conception or at the time of birth of the child.  The 
father's affidavit shall include a statement of the right to withdraw the 
affidavit of paternity as provided by subsection (d) of this section on or 
before sixty (60) days of the signing of the affidavit of paternity, or by the 
date of a judicial proceeding relating to the child in which the signatory of 
the affidavit is a party, whichever occurs earlier.  A minor parent's affidavit of paternity 
and acknowledgment shall also be signed by a legal guardian of the minor parent 
and include the social security number of the minor.

 
 
(d)    A 
withdrawal of an affidavit of paternity under subsection (c) of this section 
shall be made by affidavit of at least one (1) signatory of the affidavit of 
paternity, or if the parent is a minor, the minor parent and a legal 
guardian of the minor parent, filed with the state office of vital records 
and is valid only if filed on or before sixty (60) days from the date the 
affidavit of paternity was signed, or by the date of a judicial proceeding 
relating to the child in which the signatory of the affidavit is a party, 
whichever occurs earlier.  
Within ten (10) days after receipt, the office of vital records will 
provide notice of the withdrawal to any nonwithdrawing party at the address 
supplied on the child's birth certificate.

 
 
(e)    An 
acknowledgment by affidavit under subsection (c) of this section is final, and 
paternity shall be deemed conclusive, unless the affidavit is withdrawn as 
provided by subsection (d) of this section or the signatory of the affidavit 
proves that the signed affidavit of paternity was obtained as a result of fraud, 
duress or material mistake of fact.  The legal responsibilities arising from 
the signed affidavit of paternity, including child support obligations, shall 
not be suspended during any challenge under this subsection, except for good 
cause shown.

 
 
(f)     Every hospital, health 
care facility, birthing center or other medical assistance facility located in 
the state shall provide to any person who holds himself out to be the natural 
parent of a child born out of wedlock in the state an affidavit of paternity 
pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.  The facility providing the affidavit 
shall forward the completed affidavit to the state office of vital records.  Upon request, the state office of vital 
records shall provide blank affidavits of paternity to any facility making such 
request under this subsection.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶10]   Although MDG may be presumed to be 
NSM's natural father under subsection (a)(iv) quoted above, we need not analyze 
that presumption or that subsection because the unambiguous provisions of 
subsections (c), (d) and (e) dictate the result in this case.2  MDG signed and filed an affidavit of 
paternity pursuant to subsection (c), acknowledging that he is NSM's 
father.  That affidavit was not 
timely withdrawn, and MDG never even attempted to prove that it was obtained as 
a result of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact.  His paternity of NSM is, therefore, 
final and conclusive.  When the 
State and the district court learned of the existence of MDG's and NJM's 
affidavits, this paternity action against DNW should have been dismissed.  The provision of the earlier divorce 
decree purporting to disestablish MDG's paternity of NSM was beyond the court's 
statutory authority and was, therefore, void.  In re TRG, 665 P.2d 491, 498 (Wyo. 1983); 46 Am. Jur. 
2d Judgments §§20, 29 (2006).  MDG was, and is, NSM's father, and the 
State had no right of action against DNW.3

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶11]   The unambiguous intent of Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-102(e) (LexisNexis 2001), as applied to the facts of this 
case, was to give final and conclusive effect to MDG's paternity of NSM, as 
declared in the statutory affidavits of MDG and NJM.  To allow the bald assertions of a 
subsequent divorce settlement agreement to set aside that conclusive effect 
would be directly contrary to clear legislative intent.

 
 
[¶12]   The Order and Judgment of Paternity 
is reversed and this matter is remanded to the district court for entry of an 
order of dismissal.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The 
heading of this case, as well as the use of "NSM" to identify the child is 
misleading, inasmuch as his legal name throughout the marriage of NJM and MDG, 
and prior to it being changed unlawfully, was "NSG."  To avoid confusion, we will refer to the 
child throughout this opinion as NSM.

  

2The fact 
that we are not dealing with conflicting presumptions under subsection (a) also 
makes irrelevant most of the cases cited by the parties in their 
briefs.

 
 

3Although 
genetic testing is a powerful weapon in the State's arsenal as it seeks to 
enforce child support obligations, it is not the right answer in every 
case.  Rather, the particular facts 
of each case, judged under the applicable statutes, must dictate the 
result.  MAM v. State Dep't of Family Servs., 
2004 WY 127, ¶ 19, 99 P.3d 982, 986 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
HILL, 
Justice, dissenting.

 
 
[¶13]   I respectfully dissent because I 
cannot agree, under the circumstances of this case, that perpetuating a falsity 
outweighs the enormous preference that the law affords to ferreting out the 
truth.

 
 
[¶14]   The case now before the Court was 
initiated on March 7, 2003, when the State of Wyoming, Department of Family 
Services (DFS), filed a petition to establish paternity and support.  DFS brought the action on behalf of NSM 
(the Child) who was born on December 1, 1996.  NJM is the Child's Mother.  DNW was also named as a party to that 
action as the "putative father."  
Undisputed DNA evidence that DNW was the Child's biologic father 
persuaded the district court to conclude that DNW was the Child's biologic 
father.  MDG was the Child's 
Father-By-Affidavit from early 1999 until October of 2002, but he was not a 
party to this action.

 
 
[¶15]   When Mother discovered that she was 
pregnant, she told biologic father of the pregnancy and that she thought he was 
the father.  Biologic father did not 
think he was the father and he never heard from Mother again.  In a "Counterclaim and Cross-Claim" 
filed February 20, 2004, biologic father called the district court's attention 
to Father-By-Affidavit, but he was not joined as a party.  Trial to the court was conducted on June 
7, 2005.  On July 31, 2006, the 
district court entered its order identifying the biologic father, but the 
district court did not address either support or visitation at that time.  Exactly why this case took three years 
and four months to be resolved is not readily evident from the record.  The order from which the appeal was 
taken was not a "final order," but it was an "appealable order" because it was 
"an order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding."  W.R.A.P. 1.05; and see comment to Rule 
1.05 at 823-32 P.2d (Wyo. Rptr.) LII ("The number of this rule did not change, 
but the language was adjusted significantly to refine and clarify what an 
appealable order is, whether it be a final or interlocutory 
order.").

 
 
[¶16]   Child is now over 
ten-years-old.  His 
Father-By-Affidavit is no longer in the picture and has not been for over four 
years now.  Child's birth 
certificate showed that he had no father at the time of trial.  Father-By-Affidavit was relieved of the 
burden of his affidavit by the district court in a divorce decree entered on 
October 21, 2002, and the Child's birth certificate was adjusted 
accordingly.  That judgment was not 
appealed.

 
 
[¶17]   This is, indeed, a "profound human 
dilemma" and one not dissimilar to others we unfortunately see with some 
considerable frequency.  I dissent 
from the majority view principally because I am convinced that the truth is the 
best result we can reach in this case and because the truth is not inconsistent 
with the best interests of the child.  
See State, Div. of Child Support 
ex rel. NDB, 2001 WY 118, ¶ 14, 35 P.3d 1224, 1228 (Wyo. 2001); GDK v. State, Dept. of Family Services, 
2204 WY 78, 92 P.3d 834 (Wyo. 2004); and MAM v. State Dept. of Family Services, 
2004 WY 127, 99 P.3d 982 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶18]   In addition, I am deeply concerned 
that the majority disturbs a quiescent judgment that is not before the Court in 
this appeal, and appears to set in stone the legal rights and remedies of the 
Father-By-Affidavit even though he is not a party to these proceedings.  See W.R.C.P. 19.

 
 
[¶19]   I would affirm the district court's 
order in all respects.