Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

APRIL 2000 

OEI-06-98-00053 

PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT 

Use of Voluntary Paternity 

Acknowledgments 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, is to 

protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services programs as well as the 

health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This statutory mission is carried out through a 

nationwide program of audits, investigations, inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The 

Inspector General informs the Secretary of program and management problems and recommends 

legislative, regulatory, and operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the Office of 

Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program evaluations (called 

inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the Congress, and the public. The 

inspection reports provide findings and recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. 

OEI's Region VI prepared this report under the direction of Chester B. Slaughter, Regional 

Inspector General and Judith V. Tyler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Principal OEI staff included: 

DALLAS 

Blaine Collins, Lead Analyst

Ruth Ann Dorrill, Project Leader

Marnette Robertson

Clark Thomas, Ph.D.

Nancy Watts

Lisa White

FIELD OFFICES 

Lucille Cop 

Vincent Greiber 

Ianna Kachoris 

Thomas Purvis 

Graham Rawsthorn 

HEADQUARTERS 

Alan Levine, Program Specialist 

Joan Richardson, Program Specialist 

Linda Hall 

To obtain copies of this report, please call the Dallas Regional Office at 214-767-3310. 

Reports are also available on the World Wide Web at our home page address: 

http://www.dhhs.gov/progorg/oei 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE 

To describe State use of voluntary acknowledgments in establishing paternity, outline advantages 

of use, and identify barriers to effective use of the voluntary acknowledgment process. 

BACKGROUND 

Welfare reform legislation requires that States develop a simple civil process for parents to 

voluntarily acknowledge paternity, which serves as a conclusive finding of parentage following a 

60-day rescission period. These acknowledgments potentially reduce staff time and effort needed 

to establish paternity, and may also result in an increased number of paternities established. This 

report describes State use of the voluntary paternity acknowledgment process, using information 

from mail surveys to all State child support and vital records agencies, as well as mail surveys and 

interviews with local child support staff in six focus States. Our purpose is to describe the 

acknowledgment forms themselves, explain how States are using voluntary paternity 

acknowledgment outside the hospital setting, discuss State practices on the rescission of 

acknowledgments, and compare acknowledgment with other methods of establishing paternity. 

FINDINGS 

All States Offer Acknowledgment Services and Have Implemented Most of the Federal 

Provisions Encouraging Acknowledgment, But Only 18 States Have Full Implementation. 

All States have created acknowledgment forms which are largely uncomplicated and easy to read, 

and all conduct some form of outreach to increase parent awareness and understanding. We 

identified 18 States which have implemented all of the primary Federal provisions regarding 

acknowledgment, including use of voluntary acknowledgments as binding paternity 

establishments, a 60-day administrative rescission period, and creation of a Statewide database of 

acknowledgments. Many of the remaining 33 States have highly-developed voluntary 

acknowledgment programs, but do not yet practice some aspect of the Federal provisions. 

Most States Have Official Rescission Procedures, But Some Rescissions May Be Occurring 

Informally, and Use of Both Administrative and Judicial Rescission Methods Appears Erratic. 

States report very few rescissions, and are likely to have rescission procedures in place, but we 

found that courts and local offices may re-open paternity cases established through voluntary 

acknowledgment by ordering genetic testing long after the rescission period has passed. Also, 

child support and vital records agencies, as well as parents, sometimes are not notified when 

voluntary acknowledgments are revoked within or after the rescission window because States 

have no formal notification method. 

i 
State and Local Child Support Staff Report Many Advantages to Voluntary Acknowledgment, 

But Some May Still Prefer Other Methods of Paternity Establishment. 

State child support agencies cite a number of advantages of voluntary acknowledgment over other 

methods of paternity establishment, including saving agency time and money. They also report 

establishing paternity through acknowledgment sets a more positive tone for future parent and 

child relationships, and encourages more consistent payment of support. Nevertheless, local child 

support staff report they sometimes prefer to establish paternity using other administrative and 

judicial methods, both because they perceive these as less likely to be overturned. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

OCSE Should Encourage State Child Support Agencies to Clarify for the Courts the Legal 

Standing of Acknowledgments as Conclusive Findings of Paternity. 

We found that State and local courts may not accept the legal standing of voluntary 

acknowledgments. OCSE should encourage State child support agencies to inform State and 

local courts regarding the legality of acknowledgments as conclusive findings of paternity, and 

work more closely with State legal entities to ensure adherence to Federal law. 

OCSE Should Assist States in Training Local Child Support Staff in the Use of 

Acknowledgments, Reinforcing Acknowledgments as Conclusive Findings of Paternity. 

We found that some local child support staff did not use voluntary acknowledgments as 

conclusive findings of paternity, even when State laws and courts allowed. OCSE should provide 

technical assistance to States for instructing local child support staff regarding the legal standing 

of acknowledgments, emphasizing practical training on their use in local offices. 

OCSE Should Provide Guidelines for States Regarding Circumstances Which May Constitute 

Fraud, Duress or Material Mistake of Fact, to Reduce the Number of Acknowledgments 

Overturned. 

State laws vary regarding the re-opening of paternity cases established through voluntary 

acknowledgment. The variation among States appears to rest in their interpretation of what 

constitutes “fraud, duress and material mistake of fact.” OCSE should collect information from 

States, and use the information gathered to issue guidelines for interpretation of this clause. 

OCSE Should Encourage Child Support and Vital Records Agencies to Develop Uniform 

Statewide Rescission Processes, Including Methods for Notifying All Interested Parties. 

Welfare reform legislation establishes a uniform 60-day rescission period, but does not specify 

how rescissions should be processed. We recommend that OCSE encourage States to develop 

procedures for handling rescissions, whether administrative or judicial, and that child support and 

vital records agencies in each State work together to ensure that such procedures include the 

routine transfer of information. 

ii 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We appreciate the current initiatives of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) aimed 

at improving State use of voluntary paternity acknowledgments, and ACF’s supportive response 

to our recommendations. In our response to agency comments, we reemphasize certain features 

of our recommendations deserving of special attention. These include reinforcing the status of 

voluntary acknowledgments as binding establishments of paternity, and working with States to 

encourage proper use of acknowledgments at the local level. 

ACF comments are provided in their entirety in Appendix A. 

iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 1

FINDINGS

Use of Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgments 3

Rescission of Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgments 8

Barriers to Use of Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgments 10

RECOMMENDATIONS 14

AGENCY COMMENTS 15

ENDNOTES 16

APPENDIX A-1
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 

To describe State use of voluntary acknowledgments in establishing paternity, outline advantages 

of use, and identify barriers to effective use of the voluntary acknowledgment process. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal Mandate 

When children are born to unmarried mothers, paternity establishment is the first step in child 

support enforcement. Congress has endorsed the use of binding voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments when both parents are in agreement regarding parentage. These 

acknowledgments speed the paternity establishment process, reduce staff time and effort needed 

to establish paternity, and may also result in an increased number of paternities established. 

Federal law dictates that a voluntary paternity acknowledgment creates a conclusive finding of 

paternity, and may only be rescinded “within the earlier of 60 days or the date of an administrative 

or judicial proceeding relating to the child.”1 Either parent may rescind their acknowledgment of 

paternity within this 60-day period, but following that, they may only challenge the 

acknowledgment based on grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. Both the mother 

and putative father must be given notice, both orally and in writing, of the alternatives to, legal 

consequences of, and rights and responsibilities arising from the signed acknowledgment. 

Additionally, the father’s name may not be added to the birth certificate without a signed 

acknowledgment of paternity or issuance of an adjudication of paternity from a court or 

appropriate administrative agency.2 

State Implementation 

In recent years, both Federal and State child support enforcement agencies have invested 

considerable resources in creating in-hospital voluntary paternity acknowledgment programs. 

State efforts have been focused primarily at birthing hospitals because it is believed that the period 

immediately following birth is most conducive to voluntary acknowledgment. The father may be 

more likely to be present during the birthing experience than later in the child’s life, and the 

excitement of the birth may make parents more readily agree to establish paternity. Parents in all 

States are provided with outreach materials promoting the benefits of paternity establishment, and 

many States offer assistance in completing voluntary acknowledgment forms. OEI recently 

reported that in-hospital paternity acknowledgment programs are largely successful in 

encouraging voluntary acknowledgment.3 

While initial efforts were concentrated at birthing hospitals, welfare reform legislation also 

encourages States to use voluntary acknowledgment in other settings. Consequently, States have 

begun to offer voluntary paternity acknowledgment services to parents at child support offices, 

vital records offices, and other social service agency settings.4 As these services expand, States 

))))))))))) 1 
must ensure that uniform procedures are followed, regardless of where acknowledgments are 

administered. Because more children are having paternity established through voluntary 

acknowledgment, either in the hospital or a social service agency before they enter the IV-D 

system, States are focusing not only on providing acknowledgment services, but also on ensuring 

accurate storage and retrieval of acknowledgment documentation. 

This report discusses the implementation of Federal policy at both the State and local level, 

focusing on factors that appear to enhance or impede the use of voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments. Our purpose is to describe the voluntary acknowledgment forms themselves, 

explain how States are using voluntary paternity acknowledgment outside the hospital setting, 

outline barriers to effective use, and compare the benefits of establishing paternity through 

voluntary acknowledgment as opposed to other administrative and judicial methods. 

METHODOLOGY 

Information for this report comes from mail surveys to the primary State vital records office and 

child support enforcement office in all 50 States and the District of Columbia (100 percent 

response rate). To provide insight on local-level implementation of State policies, we also 

surveyed by mail a selection of local child support offices in six focus States: California, Georgia, 

Illinois, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia. Offices within these States were selected to provide a 

mix of urban, suburban, mid-size and rural locations.5 We received completed surveys from 99 

local child support offices, representing an 80 percent response rate. We also conducted on-site 

interviews with administrators and front-line staff in four local child support offices, visiting 

offices within one or two cities and their surrounding areas in each focus State.6 We also 

requested supplementary documentation including copies of the State voluntary paternity 

acknowledgment form and public outreach materials. 

We purposively selected the focus States by reviewing the following criteria: non-marital birth 

rates by State and locality, State Paternity Establishment Percentages (PEP), percentage of child 

support cases with support orders, status of voluntary acknowledgment programs, operations and 

certification status of automated systems, outstanding program characteristics (innovation, 

privatization, etc.), status as State-administered or county-administered, and geographic region. 

Our focus States represent a fairly broad spectrum of implementation strategies and experiences. 

The selection of focus States does not purport to be representative of the nation. It does, 

however, allow for examination of paternity establishment processes under conditions found 

throughout the country.7 

This study was conducted as part of a larger project on State paternity establishment practices. 

Data collection focused primarily on establishment procedures outside birthing hospitals. 

Companion reports discuss the role of vital records agencies in paternity establishment efforts, the 

use of genetic testing, and other administrative and judicial methods of paternity establishment. 

This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

))))))))))) 2 
F I N D I N G S

USE OF VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

States Have Adapted Their Voluntary Acknowledgment Forms to Include Most of OCSE’s 

Required Data Elements. 

States must include a minimum set of data elements developed by the Federal Office of Child 

Support Enforcement (OCSE) on their voluntary paternity acknowledgment forms. Mandated 

data elements were intended to ease interstate use, since States must grant full faith and credit to 

all other State acknowledgment forms. Table 1 lists the required data elements, and the number 

of States including them on their current voluntary acknowledgment forms. Thirty-eight States 

have revised their voluntary paternity acknowledgment forms since the mandatory data elements 

were released, but a few report they are not yet using the new version because they don’t want to 

waste the earlier forms already printed and in circulation. Most States previously included 

required basic information about the parents and child. However, only seven States include the 

place where the form was completed. Knowing the place of completion allows child support 

agencies to better track voluntary paternity acknowledgment services offered at hospitals and 

other entities. Some States which have not added this data element track the place of 

employment of the notary as a rough gauge of where particular acknowledgments were signed. 

As for requiring parents to sign that they understand their rights and responsibilities, 40 States 

simply add this statement to the form so that when the parents sign the acknowledgment they are 

also attesting that they understand their rights and responsibilities. Seven States, however, chose 

to emphasize this point further by requiring a second signature.8 

TABLE 1: REQUIRED MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS IN 

VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS 

Data Element Number of States 

Full Name, Social Security Number and Birthdate of Mother, Father and Child 51 

Addresses of the Mother and Father 51 

Signature Lines for the Mother, Father, and Any Witnesses or Notaries 51 

Birthplace of the Child 47 

Explanation of Legal Consequences (sometimes on attached document) 47 

Statement Indicating Both Parents Understand Their Rights and Responsibilities 47 

Place the Voluntary Acknowledgment Form Was Completed 7 

Ten State voluntary acknowledgment forms have included space for the signature of the husband 

of a mother who is married to someone other than the biological father of the child. This allows 

the husband to relinquish his parental rights at the same time the natural father’s paternity is 

established. Another ten States have developed a separate form for the husband, typically called 

))))))))))) 3 
a Denial of Paternity, which releases the husband from parental responsibility without establishing 

paternity for the natural father. In this case, the parents could then complete a voluntary paternity 

acknowledgment in order to establish paternity for the natural father. 

Voluntary Acknowledgment Forms are Fairly Uncomplicated and Easy to Read. 

The language used in State voluntary acknowledgment forms is typically simple and 

straightforward, and local office staff in focus States maintain that clients are able to complete 

voluntary acknowledgment forms with little assistance. Although staff did voice concern that 

parents may not understand the implications of signing, even when provided with oral notification 

of rights and responsibilities, the technical completion of the form does not appear to pose 

problems.9 However, voluntary acknowledgment forms in 20 States must be completed without 

errors or corrections, much like other legally binding documents. Strict adherence to this policy, 

particularly when parents have only one form, may pose a barrier. 

Some States are more informal about acknowledgment procedures. Two States allow parents to 

use a birth certificate instead of a voluntary acknowledgment form, intending to ease 

establishment in the hospital. While birth certificates do not conclusively establish paternity, in 

these States only perfunctory judicial approval is required, whether parents use a birth certificate 

or a voluntary paternity acknowledgment form. Local staff in one of our focus States report that 

parents can even write on a plain sheet of paper to acknowledge, as long as it is notarized and 

includes the proper information about the parents and child. 

Forms May Inhibit Use By Requesting Too Much Information About the Mother and Father. 

Local staff in a number of our focus States report concern that acknowledgment forms sometimes 

require parents to divulge more information than they are able or willing to provide. Clearly, 

States have incentives to obtain as much information as possible about parents. Information about 

the mother may be used to confirm her public assistance eligibility or to distribute child support 

payments, and information about the father is needed to help locate him and his employer for the 

collection of support. However, requesting an excessive amount of information may inhibit 

completion of the forms. In addition to requesting information about employers, extended family, 

and prior residences, forms in eight States request demographic information such as race, age, and 

occupation. With staff access to automated databases, social security numbers of mother and 

putative father are often enough for child support staff to easily uncover more information. If this 

descriptive information can be retrieved elsewhere, requiring that it be included on the form may 

discourage voluntary acknowledgments. 

Child Support Agencies Provide Outreach on Acknowledgment, and Parents May Complete 

Acknowledgments at Local Child Support Offices as Well as Hospitals and Other Entities. 

Child support agencies in nearly all States (49) provide outreach materials to parents on the 

availability and use of voluntary acknowledgment forms. In a few States, the child support 

agency has a team of paternity coordinators who are tasked only with distributing materials and 

conducting staff training on voluntary acknowledgment procedures. Local staff in focus States 

))))))))))) 4 
report they inform parents about the option of voluntary acknowledgment by discussing it directly 

with clients (90 percent), distributing written outreach materials (40 percent), showing videotapes 

promoting acknowledgment (17 percent), airing public service announcements (11 percent), and 

providing audiotape explanations (3 percent). All local offices in our focus States report parents 

may sign and submit voluntary paternity acknowledgments in their office. 

About half of State child support agencies (23) currently offer acknowledgment services through 

some of their public assistance offices. Parents in 32 States may also voluntarily acknowledge 

paternity in all or nearly all local vital records offices. Typical services offered through these 

alternative sites include distribution of public outreach materials explaining voluntary 

acknowledgment and, to a lesser degree, personal assistance to parents in completing paternity 

acknowledgments. However, some States are wary of expanding voluntary acknowledgment 

services outside hospitals and child support offices because they fear staff at other entities may not 

administer the process correctly or properly forward completed forms for record. In one State 

where the voluntary acknowledgment program is run largely by the vital records agency, vital 

records staff report they only allow acknowledgments to be completed in hospitals or vital records 

offices, in order to “maximize program integrity and lead to less confusion by parents, the courts 

and other interested parties.” 

State Child Support Agencies Report it is Easy to Access Acknowledgment Information, But 

Local Offices Find it is More Difficult to Access Acknowledgments Signed Outside Hospitals. 

Child support agencies in 38 States report it is easy or somewhat easy to access information about 

acknowledgments, with 13 of these reporting it is very easy. Another seven States report it is 

difficult to obtain this information, and the remaining five States remained neutral, describing the 

process as neither easy nor difficult. Thirty-nine States report that receiving information on 

acknowledgments completed outside the hospital is no more difficult than for those completed in 

hospitals. The 12 States indicating that acknowledgments signed outside the hospital are more 

difficult to obtain also tend to report experiencing some difficulty in obtaining in-hospital 

acknowledgments. 

In contrast, local child support offices in the six focus States report it is more difficult for them to 

obtain information about voluntary acknowledgments completed outside hospitals. Staff in fortyeight percent of local child support offices in focus States report that it is more difficult to obtain 

information about acknowledgments that were completed in locations other than hospitals. At 

least one reason for the difference is that child support workers often develop close working 

relations with staff at nearby hospitals and routinely gather paternity information from these 

sources. However, caseworkers report more difficulty receiving information about 

acknowledgments that occur elsewhere, whether at hospitals outside the area or at alternative 

sites. Several respondents expressed hope that enhanced automated systems may improve access 

to all acknowledgments, no matter where they are completed. 

))))))))))) 5 
States Have Implemented Most of the Federal Provisions Encouraging Voluntary 

Acknowledgment, But Just 18 States Have Full Implementation. 

We identified 18 States which have implemented and practice all of the primary Federal provisions 

regarding voluntary acknowledgment programs. These States report Statewide implementation of 

their in-hospital program, offer acknowledgment services at child support and vital records 

offices, provide parents an administrative 60-day rescission period after which voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments are binding in nearly all cases, utilize a Statewide database of all signed 

acknowledgments, and allow local child support staff to administratively create child support 

orders using only the acknowledgment. While child support agencies in many of the remaining 33 

States have highly-developed programs, they have not yet met all the criteria listed above, 

typically because they use some degree of court involvement in the process.10 

The 18 identified States appear to rely heavily on voluntary acknowledgments to establish 

paternity both within and outside the welfare population.11 States in this group also strongly favor 

administrative methods for all aspects of child support enforcement. They are likely to locate 

State child support agencies within social service administrations, and even tend to use 

administrative rather than judicial methods for more complex paternity cases. However, although 

these States offer complete acknowledgment services, some staff in local offices still revert to 

using similar, but more labor-intensive administrative orders of paternity when fathers sign outside 

the hospital.12 An administrator in one of these States argues that Federal regulation only requires 

that a simple, civil process be made available, and that their staff use a variety of methods for 

establishing paternity as warranted by each case. 

Two of these 18 States were included in our focus sample, allowing us to review local office 

practices and implementation. Local staff in these two States note the relative ease of establishing 

paternity through voluntary acknowledgment. They indicate that access to a Statewide database 

is important to their use of previously signed acknowledgments, but they also rely on parents to 

bring acknowledgments signed in the hospital to the child support office. More importantly, these 

local staff help parents complete voluntary acknowledgments in their offices. When establishing 

paternity for a new public assistance case, staff might inform the mother that her case will be 

resolved more quickly if she brings the putative father into the office to sign a form. Since parents 

need not sign the form together (or even sign the same form in most States), the mother might 

deliver or mail the form to the putative father to sign. Some offices in these two focus States also 

offer to mail voluntary acknowledgment information to the putative father with a deadline for 

action, so that the mother need not directly contact him. This correspondence, as well as the 

acknowledgment form itself, may remind the father of his right to request genetic testing prior to 

signing. Typically, the voluntary acknowledgment form is completed and attached to 

supplementary documents which address the father’s wages and any custody and visitation 

agreement. 

)))))))))))

6 
Child Support Staff Report Voluntary Acknowledgments Save Parents and Staff Time, and 

May Encourage Better Parent Relationships and More Consistent Payment of Support. 

Voluntary acknowledgment, particularly when completed in the hospital, has unique advantages 

over other methods of establishing paternity. Table 2 outlines possible advantages to establishing 

paternity through voluntary acknowledgment. Overall, State child support agencies appear more 

enthusiastic about voluntary acknowledgment than local child support offices in our six focus 

States. State and local respondents do agree that voluntary acknowledgment establishes paternity 

more quickly than other methods. However, the other prominent advantages identified by Statelevel respondents (convenience for parents, less time invested by parents and child support staff, 

and saving agency money) were listed less often by local staff. Interestingly, about half of both 

State and local respondents report the father is more likely to consistently pay support if he 

establishes paternity through voluntary acknowledgment. 

Relative to other methods, local staff identified several other advantages of voluntary 

acknowledgment including: fathers who voluntarily acknowledge may be more involved with the 

child; the acknowledgment forms collect more information on fathers; clients and staff are more 

comfortable with a simpler and less adversarial process; and voluntary acknowledgment may send 

the child the positive message that his father wants to be a responsible parent. An added 

advantage to at-birth acknowledgments is that the father’s name may be included as part of the 

original birth record. 

TABLE 2: ADVANTAGES OF ESTABLISHING PATERNITY 

THROUGH VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

Advantages State CSE 

Respondents 

Local Focus CSE 

Respondents 

Establishment Occurs More Quickly 94 % (48 States) 89 % (87 Offices) 

More Convenient for Parents 86 % (44) 65 % (62) 

Takes Less of Child Support Staff Time 86 % (44) 61 % (59) 

Less Costly for Child Support Agency 80 % (41) 56 % (54) 

Promotes Better Parent Relationships 59 % (30) 46 % (45) 

Fathers Who Acknowledge Are More 

Likely to Pay 

47 % (24) 45 % (43) 

)))))))))))

7 
RESCISSION OF VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Forty-five States Have an Official Rescission Procedure in Place, With 18 Using an 

Administrative Method, and 21 Using Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Methods of Rescission. 

Although most States (45) report creating official procedures for rescission of voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments, there is much debate over the relative merit of administrative and judicial 

rescission methods. The remaining six States have no formal rescission process or are currently 

involved in designing a process. Advocates of administrative methods claim that the intent of the 

60-day rescission window is to allow parents a simple process for reversing their action before it 

becomes legally binding, which emphasizes the voluntary nature of the acknowledgment itself. 

They argue that voluntary acknowledgment is an administrative action, and that it’s reversal 

within a brief time period is appropriately administrative as well. 

State child support agencies in 18 States report their rescission process is fully administrative. 

Most of these States have created a simple rescission form which either parent can complete and 

submit to the child support agency within the time frame. A few States also require these parents 

to submit proof of a certified letter to the other parent informing them of the action, and a 

notarized affirmation from the vital records office that they have requested amendment of the 

birth record. The majority of States, however, appear to have no formal method for contacting all 

parties. Administrative rescissions in some States do not automatically alter the birth record 

because the vital records agency requires a court order to remove the original father’s name. 

Some States might claim to have an administrative process, and yet this means only that the 

request for the rescission is received by the administering child support office. That office may 

then submit an order for genetic testing, and if the father is excluded he must go to court to have 

his name removed. Also, some administrative processes require an administrative hearing which 

can take as long as getting on the court docket. 

Child support agencies in 15 States report they have a fully judicial method for rescission, which 

requires the requesting parent to appear in court to change the paternity determination. 

Proponents of a judicial method believe it increases the likelihood that all parties are notified, and 

also discourages impulsive actions on the part of either parent. Parents in these States typically 

must file a petition for rescission with the family court, and are ordered by the judge to submit to 

genetic testing to determine parentage. Six States report they have a quasi-administrative 

procedure requiring some sort of judicial approval. This procedure may require the parent to 

submit a request for rescission which a court clerk may approve without a court appearance. 

Regardless of the method used, rescission is valued for the due process protections it potentially 

affords mothers and putative fathers. State child support agencies in 25 States and State vital 

records agencies in 28 States report that knowing they can rescind the acknowledgment 

encourages parents to sign. Of the 33 State vital records agencies responding as to which parent 

is more likely to initiate a rescission, ten report the putative father, and four report the mother, 

with the remaining nineteen perceiving that parents were equally likely to rescind an 

acknowledgment. 

))))))))))) 8 
Most States Report Very Few Official Rescissions, But More Rescissions May Be Occurring 

Informally Through Child Support Offices and Courts. 

We reported in our 1997 study of in-hospital acknowledgment programs that the number of 

rescissions was very low, and our current data indicates that rescissions are still infrequent.13 

Thirty-nine State vital records agencies and 35 State child support agencies report few or no 

rescissions. Only two States report handling more than a few rescissions, but still report the 

number to be fairly small relative to the large number of signed acknowledgments. The largest 

number of rescissions reported by a State was 50 over a three-year period. This same State 

reported to OCSE that it processed over 12,000 signed acknowledgments within approximately 

the same time period. About half (55 percent) of local offices contacted in focus states report 

they have never handled any type of rescission. 

Although the number of official rescissions is low, States may only report the few rescissions that 

follow formal State procedures. Based on our analysis of State documents and survey responses, 

acknowledgments are being revoked after the 60-day window through use of ad hoc methods in 

child support offices and courts. These revocations are not reported as rescissions because they 

typically occur following the 60-day period under the provision allowing for challenge of the 

acknowledgment due to fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. A strict interpretation of this 

phrase suggests that the man cannot merely claim that he was given misinformation from the 

mother. However, OCSE has not specified what constitutes fraud, duress, or material mistake of 

fact through regulation, and State discretion has resulted in widely varying interpretations. 

Child Support and Vital Records Agencies, as Well as Parents, Sometimes are Not Notified 

When Voluntary Acknowledgments are Revoked Within or After the Rescission Window. 

When an official rescission has taken place, it is doubtful that all interested parties are notified. 

State child support agencies in only 21 States report they routinely notify vital records agencies 

when rescissions take place, and vital records agencies in only 23 States report they do the same 

for child support agencies when rescissions occur at their offices. Vital records agencies in 11 

States report they do not receive rescission information unless the parents happen to request an 

amendment of the birth record, and most others appear to have no formal method to ensure 

notification. Twenty-one State vital records agencies report they change the birth record 

automatically when notified of a rescission, while the remaining agencies require additional action 

on the part of parents or courts. Child support agencies in only 28 States formally notify the other 

parent when a rescission is filed, but respondents in States which do not notify parents claim the 

other parent finds out anyway because they may be ordered to submit to genetic testing. Vital 

records agencies in only 11 States formally notify the other parent when a rescission is processed 

through their office, and notice is typically sent by mail. Of course, when voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments are overturned informally by child support staff or courts, notification of all 

parties appears even less likely. 

))))))))))) 9 
BARRIERS TO USE OF VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

State and Local Child Support Staff Concerns About the Use of Acknowledgments Relate Less 

to the Process Itself Than To Incorrect Implementation by Parents and Staff. 

While child support agencies in 22 States express no concerns with the use of voluntary paternity 

acknowledgments, the remaining agencies (as well as most State vital records agencies and local 

child support offices in focus States) identified a number of potential problems. As shown in 

Table 3, the most common issues concern how voluntary acknowledgments are administered 

rather than inherent flaws in the process. Some State child support agencies, and about one third 

or more local office respondents in focus States, are concerned that staff at hospitals, vital records 

offices and alternative sites may administer voluntary acknowledgments incorrectly. While only a 

few State child support and vital records agencies lack confidence in the legal standing of 

voluntary paternity acknowledgments, local child support staff in forty-two offices report such 

concerns. Several caseworkers related experiences in which courts would overturn 

acknowledgments after the 60-day rescission period by granting genetic testing to determine 

parentage. Some local staff expressed a perception that the legal community in their State had 

reservations about any use of voluntary acknowledgments, leading caseworkers to avoid use of 

acknowledgments. As one local office reports, “Voluntary acknowledgment would be easier in 

the short-term, but with a [court order] at least we know we won’t have to reopen the case 

later.” 

TABLE 3: CONCERNS WITH USE OF VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Concern With Voluntary 

Acknowledgment 

State CSE 

Respondents 

Local CSE Focus 

Respondents 

State Vital Records 

Respondents 

No Concerns 43 % 

(22 States) 

19 % 

(19 Offices) 

33 % 

(17 States) 

Hospitals May Administer Incorrectly 37 % 

(19) 

47 % 

(46) 

40 % 

(21) 

Alternative Sites May Administer 

Incorrectly 

24 % 

(12) 

33 % 

(33) 

27 % 

14 

Parents Should Have First Sought Genetic 

Testing to be Sure of Parentage 

24 % 

(12) 

43 % 

(43) 

13 % 

(7) 

Not Confident of the Legal Standing of the 

Acknowledgment Document 

12 % 

(6) 

43 % 

(42) 

17 % 

(9) 

Parents May Have Been Coerced to Sign 12 % 

(6) 

32 % 

(32) 

17 % 

(9) 

Vital Records Agency May Administer 

Incorrectly 

6 % 

(3) 

31 % 

(31) 

N/A 

))))))))))) 10 
Other concerns voiced by both State and local staff are that custody and visitation matters are not 

addressed by voluntary acknowledgment, and that some men may sign the affidavit knowing they 

are not the father, as one local office manager describes “out of kindness, pity or foolishness.” 

Some local offices we visited report that months or years later, when these fathers may no longer 

be in a relationship with the mothers or when required to make child support payments, they may 

either request genetic testing or become chronically delinquent payers. At the time of signing, 

some of these men may genuinely plan to perform as father throughout the child’s life, but others 

may have no such desire. Mothers may encourage this type of acknowledgment to help maintain 

their eligibility for public assistance benefits or to keep the real father away from the child. 

A few State agencies and about a third of local office respondents are concerned that some people 

who sign acknowledgments may be coerced. Local staff suggest this may occur in hospitals, at 

the time of birth, when relatives of the new-born may make threats or otherwise coerce one or 

both parties into signing an acknowledgment. As shown in Table 3, some State and local 

respondents believe it would be better for parties to confirm paternity through genetic testing than 

to voluntary acknowledge. 

Child Support Staff May Simply Prefer to Establish Paternity Using Other Administrative and 

Judicial Methods, Believing They Create a More Solid Foundation for Collection of Support. 

Even when States make voluntary acknowledgment procedures accessible, child support staff 

may choose to use other administrative or judicial methods of paternity establishment. Further, 

when staff perceive advantages to other methods of paternity establishment, they may use these 

methods even when it requires discarding a valid voluntary acknowledgment. Staff in four of our 

six focus States report they may not encourage voluntary acknowledgment, choosing instead to 

assist parents in completing an administrative order of paternity which may include paternity 

establishment, determination of the award amount, creation of the child support order, and 

possibly even resolution of custody and visitation issues, effectively completing their casework in 

one meeting. Or, if uncertainty exists about the identity of the father, establishment may involve 

genetic testing and a subsequent ruling of paternity. 

On the other hand, child support staff may encourage parents to use voluntary acknowledgment, 

in their office if the parents are living together at the time the mother applies for public assistance. 

One worker describes this type of case, “If it is an intact family and the father is with the mother, 

then we will have him sign a [voluntary acknowledgment] form. We have been getting quite a 

few of these kinds of cases lately. In the case of an intact family, the form alone is enough to 

establish paternity. For the record, we open a case and then close it right away, as long as he is 

in the home with the custodial parent and they are both together.” 

States With Highly Judicial Processes May Not Use Voluntary Acknowledgments or Other 

Administrative Methods Because the Support Order Must Be Created Judicially Anyway. 

About half of States (23) still require some sort of judicial involvement for establishing paternity, 

regardless of whether the case is contested or not. In these States, staff may see little benefit to 

))))))))))) 11 
using voluntary acknowledgments because child support orders must still be approved by the 

courts. When paternity is established judicially a support order is typically entered 

simultaneously. A local administrator in one of these States reports, “all of our orders go 

through the courts, even voluntary acknowledgments. We don’t bother to hunt down an 

acknowledgment or have the parents come in to sign one. It just adds an unnecessary step to the 

process.” While workers in some States may simply perceive that it is easier to use their tried and 

true judicial processes for paternity and child support establishments, child support agencies in at 

least five States lack the authority to finalize child support orders administratively. 

Both Courts and Child Support Agencies May Not Consider Voluntary Acknowledgments 

Binding in Contested Cases, and Order Genetic Testing Long After the Rescission Period. 

Not all States have adopted the Federal mandate for a 60-day rescission period followed by a 

conclusive finding of paternity. Critics of the window argue that placing a limit on the time within 

which a parent may rescind violates due process laws in some States. In other States, automated 

systems allow child support orders to be created very quickly, sometimes the same day as the 

acknowledgment, effectively eliminating the time period for legal rescission.14 Even States which 

have adopted the 60-day rescission rule sometimes revoke acknowledgments later. Procedures 

vary widely by State, but may be called “re-openings” rather than rescissions, and require parents 

only to petition the court, appear at a hearing, and submit to genetic testing, possibly without any 

evidence of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact. If the father is excluded through genetic 

testing, he may need to file yet another form to formally revoke his parental rights and obligations. 

Courts are not alone in revoking voluntary acknowledgments long after the rescission period. 

Local child support staff in focus States report offering to “set aside” prior acknowledgments in 

order to give clients the time to complete genetic tests. If the father doesn’t submit to testing 

within a certain time period (typically two weeks), the child support office may begin steps to 

establish paternity by default. Staff in other offices don’t even consider the form binding to begin 

with, and use it instead merely as a source of information about the putative father. They report 

that the extensive information included in the acknowledgment is very useful to caseworkers in 

locating the putative father and creating the actual support order. Child support agencies in 22 

States affirm that they recommend their local offices prioritize their caseload by first working the 

cases with the most information. 

Some judges and child support staff may not accept acknowledgments as binding because they 

genuinely believe parents should submit to genetic testing in nearly every case. In our study of 

State genetic testing practices, we report that 40 State child support agencies believe genetic 

testing should be used when any uncertainty about paternity exists on the part of any of the 

parties, and another six go further to say it should be used in all cases. One local administrator in 

a focus State argues that, “Testing in all cases eliminates later motions for testing after 

arrearages have accumulated.” It is not uncommon for a judge to order genetic testing when a 

voluntary acknowledgment already exists. Until a court order exists, the judge may not consider 

that the case has a legal finding of paternity. If the case is never contested, the administrative 

ruling will stand. But if a father decides months or even years later that he was unsure and no 

))))))))))) 12 
longer wants to make payments, he may contest the original acknowledgment. As previously 

mentioned, staff report that it is common for a father to deny his original acknowledgment at the 

time he is first required to pay support, which may also be at the end of his relationship with the 

mother. 

))))))))))) 13 
RECOMMENDATIONS

OCSE Should Encourage State Child Support Agencies to Clarify for the Courts the Legal 

Standing of Acknowledgments as Conclusive Findings of Paternity. 

Although welfare reform encourages States to use administrative methods to establish paternity 

and create child support orders, many States still rely on their courts to varying degrees. We 

found that State and local courts may not accept the legal standing of voluntary 

acknowledgments. OCSE should encourage State child support agencies to inform State and 

local courts regarding the legality of acknowledgments as conclusive findings of paternity, and 

work more closely with State legal entities to ensure adherence to Federal law. 

OCSE Should Assist States in Training Local Child Support Staff in the Use of Voluntary 

Acknowledgments, Reinforcing Acknowledgments as Binding Establishments of Paternity. 

We found that some local child support staff did not use voluntary acknowledgments as 

conclusive findings of paternity, even when State laws and courts allowed. OCSE should provide 

technical assistance to States for instructing local child support staff regarding the legal standing 

of paternity acknowledgments as binding establishments of paternity, emphasizing practical 

training on use of acknowledgments in establishing paternity. We found that local staff may 

ignore signed acknowledgments, choosing to pursue paternity establishment through other 

methods. Because voluntary acknowledgment can potentially save valuable staff time, local staff 

should be further educated on the legal implications of acknowledgment and encouraged to use it 

when possible as part of standard office procedure. 

OCSE Should Provide Guidelines for States Regarding Circumstances Which May Constitute 

Fraud, Duress or Material Mistake of Fact, to Reduce the Number of Acknowledgments 

Overturned. 

State laws vary regarding the re-opening of paternity cases established through voluntary 

acknowledgment. The variation among States appears to rest in their interpretation of what 

constitutes “fraud, duress and material mistake of fact.” OCSE should collect information from 

States, and use the information gathered through their investigation to issue guidelines for 

interpretation of this clause. 

OCSE Should Encourage Child Support and Vital Records Agencies to Develop Uniform 

Statewide Rescission Processes, Including Methods for Notifying All Interested Parties. 

Welfare reform legislation establishes a uniform 60-day rescission period, but does not specify 

how rescissions should be processed. States possess unique characteristics which may cause them 

to favor administrative or judicial revocation. We recommend that OCSE encourage States to 

develop procedures for handling rescissions, and that child support and vital records agencies in 

each State work together to develop a procedure for the rescission of acknowledgments, 

including the routine transfer of rescission information to agencies, courts and parents. 

))))))))))) 14 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

We appreciate the current initiatives of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) aimed 

at improving State use of voluntary paternity acknowledgments, and ACF’s supportive response 

to our recommendations. Here we wish to reemphasize certain features of our recommendations 

deserving of special attention as OCSE proceeds to implement them. 

Regarding our recommendation that OCSE encourage States to clarify for the courts the legal 

standing of acknowledgments, ACF advises that they will inform States of this recommendation 

and the findings upon which it is based. On this issue, we wish to emphasize that the treatment of 

an acknowledgment as a conclusive finding of paternity is a clear legal requirement. We hope that 

this will be emphasized in any materials which ACF sends to the States on this matter, and we 

encourage ACF to work closely with States to help ensure adherence to the Federal law. 

Regarding our recommendation that OCSE assist States in training local staff on the use and 

meaning of acknowledgments, ACF requests that we provide information about States having 

difficulty in order to provide guidance. We will provide this information. ACF also states its 

plans to continue distribution of a Computer-Based Training program for use by local office staff. 

We viewed this program, and believe it provides valuable information on procedures, recent 

legislation, and reasons for establishing paternity, but is insufficient for reinforcing the concept of 

acknowledgments as binding establishments of paternity. We encourage ACF to further explore 

ways to assist States in promoting proper use of acknowledgments, and in discouraging local staff 

and court dismissal of existing acknowledgments. 

Regarding our recommendation that OCSE provide guidance on circumstances which may 

constitute fraud, duress and material mistake of fact, ACF states that they will investigate this 

issue, sharing effective practices and offering guidance to States experiencing problems. The 

importance of this issue has caused us to modify our original recommendation to encourage ACF 

to use the information gathered to issue guidelines for interpreting this clause. ACF requested 

information on States which have misinterpreted this clause, which we will provide. We continue 

to believe the confusion over interpretation is more widespread than can be addressed by targeting 

States identified as experiencing problems. Our research shows that the principle problems of 

nonadherence or misinterpretation of the law are more likely to stem from caseworkers and courts 

at the local level, rather than just with State policy. In addition to issuing guidelines, we 

encourage ACF to assist States in addressing this issue at the local level. 

In response to our final recommendation that OCSE assist child support and vital records 

agencies in developing a Statewide rescission process, including a method for notifying all 

interested parties, ACF responds that they will inform the States of our finding and promote 

effective methods of cooperating with vital records agencies. We wish to emphasize that these 

rescission processes should include uniform methods for notifying all interested parties, including 

courts and parents as well as child support and vital records agencies. 

The agency also made a few technical comments which we have addressed in the body of the 

report. ACF comments are provided in their entirety in Appendix A. 

))))))))))) 15 
E N D N O T E S

1. Section 466(a)(5)(C) of the act as added by section 331 of Pub. L. 104-193 and amended by 

section 5539 of Pub. L. 105-33. 

2. Social Security Act, Section 466(a)(5)(D)(i)(II). 

3. For more information, please refer to In-Hospital Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgment 

Program: State Agency and Birthing Hospital Implementation, 1997, OEI 06-95-00160. 

4. Federal regulation requires State vital records agencies to offer paternity acknowledgment 

services, and States may choose to offer services at local vital records offices and other entities, 

such as Head Start programs, public health clinics, WIC centers, and schools. We discuss the use 

of State and local vital records offices in our companion report entitled Paternity Establishment: 

The Role of Vital Records Agencies, OEI-06-98-00055, and the use of other entities in our 

companion report entitled Paternity Establishment: Use of Alternative Sites, OEI-06-98-00052, 

1999. 

5. These State and local offices were not randomly selected and their responses should not be 

interpreted as representative of all local offices in the nation or even within their own State. 

6. The availability of OIG agency support staff to assist in conducting interviews played a role in 

selection of these interview sites. 

7. The six focus States comprise 31 percent of total U.S. births, 32 percent of total U.S. nonmarital births, 32 percent of total U.S. IV-D cases, 26 percent of total U.S. IV-D cases with child 

support orders, and 27 percent of total U.S. IV-D cases with child support collections. The 

collective non-marital birthrate of the focus States is almost identical to the national average (32.0 

percent vs. 32.4 percent), with somewhat lower, but comparable, rates for the percentage of IV-D 

cases with support orders (47.3 percent vs. 57.3 percent), and the percentage of cases actually 

collecting support (16.4 percent vs. 19.4 percent). Comparison data comes from the OCSE 21st 

Annual Report to Congress and the National Center for Health Statistics. 

8. For more information on the substance of parental rights and responsibilities, refer to our 

companion report entitled Paternity Establishment: Notification of Parental Rights and 

Responsibilities, OEI-06-98-00051, 1999. 

9. For more information on staff views regarding parents’ understanding of rights and 

responsibilities, see ibid OEI 06-98-00051, 1999. 

10. For more information on the level of judicial involvement in State paternity establishment 

practices, see our companion report Paternity Establishment: Administrative and Judicial 

Methods, OEI 06-98-00050, 2000. 

11. Although this study does not attempt to compare State paternity establishment percentages 

(PEP) with methods used, a quick look at PEP rates for these 18 States indicates a slightly higher 

))))))))))) 16 
overall rate of establishment as compared to the average of all States. 

12. For more information about other administrative methods of paternity establishment, see our 

companion report on paternity establishment methods, ibid, OEI-06-98-00050, 2000. 

13. Ibid, OEI-06-95-00160, 1997. 

14. Michigan is operating under a Federal waiver which allows them to ignore the 60-day 

mandate while they experiment with various recission methods. 

))))))))))) 17 
APPENDIX A

))))))))))) A-1
))))))))))) A-2
))))))))))) A-3
))))))))))) A-4