Opinion ID: 2567467
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Policy of Preserving Marital Stability Extends to Parent-Child Relationships Created by the Marriage

Text: ¶12 In three previous cases, we have allowed challenges to a marital father's presumption of paternity but in circumstances much different than the case at hand. In Schoolcraft, we allowed a challenge to the presumption of paternity when the marital father had been separated from the mother for seven months to a year before she gave birth to a son, whom she soon abandoned. The marital father in Schoolcraft had no knowledge of the child's existence until nine months after his birth and had never developed a relationship with the child. When the marital father sought to assert his paternity at the abandonment proceedings, we allowed the guardian ad litem to challenge his presumption of paternity in part because the child had never had a relationship with [the marital father]. [10] ¶13 In two other cases decided before Schoolcraft, we also allowed challenges to the presumption of paternity. In Teece v. Teece, [11] we allowed such a challenge because the marital father was in Canada at the time of conception, while his wife remained in the United States. [12] Further, the marital father refused to accept responsibility for his wife's child, and his wife filed for divorce soon after the child's birth. [13] ¶14 In Lopes v. Lopes, [14] we allowed a challenge to the marital father's presumption of paternity. In that case, the marital father filed for divorce while his wife was pregnant with the biological child of another man. [15] ¶15 In Schoolcraft, Teece, and Lopes, the marital father and mother were separated or had filed for divorce prior to or shortly after the birth of the child. [16] Moreover, in each case, there was no relationship between the child and the marital father. Therefore, we allowed challenges to the presumption of paternity. ¶16 The facts in this case are much different. Here, prior to the birth of Z.P., Kimberlee agreed that Kelly would be Z.P.'s father. After the birth, Kimberlee and Kelly remained married and took steps towards solidifying their relationship. During this period, Kelly accepted an equal share of the custody of and responsibility for Z.P. Kelly and Z.P. developed a strong father-son relationship that has continued following the dissolution of the Pearsons' marriage. The facts that Kimberlee and Kelly were married at the time of Z.P.'s birth and that Kelly assumed a paternal role following the birth distinguishes this case from any other that we have previously examined. ¶17 We agree with the court of appeals that preserving the marriage does not [lose] all relevance upon divorce. [17] [T]he Pearsons' efforts to maintain their marriage after Z.P.'s birth remain relevant to the Schoolcraft analysis, even post-divorce. [18] Indeed, the policy of encouraging the marital father to stay married to the child's mother and to assume parental responsibility for the child is not rendered irrelevant by the fact that this particular marriage ended in divorce. The parent-child relationships created by marriage last beyond the dissolution of the individual marriage. Recognition and protection of these relationships encourages the acceptance of parental responsibility and the formation of relationships between marital fathers and children who are born into their marriage. We have previously emphasized the importance of preserving family harmony between spouses as a policy consideration for favoring legitimacy. [19] Favoring legitimacy also promotes family harmony between parents and children by protecting and preserving these crucial relationships. Therefore, we interpret the first part of the Schoolcraft test broadly to encourage the development of these parent-child relationships and to protect them once they have developed. ¶18 Furthermore, a marital father should not be exposed to attacks on his paternity after voluntarily assuming parental responsibilities for a child conceived outside of the marriage. When a marital father is committed to raising a child born into the marriage and actively assumes the role of father following the child's birth, any challenge to paternity runs afoul of the first part of the Schoolcraft test because it undermines the preservation of marital stability. ¶19 After Kelly committed to raise Z.P. as his son, he fulfilled that commitment by acting as a father to Z.P. during the first years of his life. Moreover, the Pearsons continued to raise Z.P. together after their separation, maintaining the same parent-child relationships that existed during their marriage. Because the Pearsons' marriage was intact when Z.P. was born and Kelly, as a marital father, voluntarily assumed parental responsibility for Z.P., the presumption of paternity cannot be challenged in this case.