Opinion ID: 2616601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Case Falls Within the Public Interest Exception to the Mootness Doctrine.

Text: After the superior court ordered CSED to provide paternity testing, the parties agreed that CSED would not seek a stay of the order and A.H. would not argue mootness before this court. CSED then provided paternity testing which established that J.Z. is D.J.'s father. We expressed concern that the case was moot and requested that both parties brief the issue of whether the case falls within the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. The public interest exception requires that an issue be (1) capable of repetition, (2) capable of evading review, and (3) of considerable public interest. [3] Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985). We conclude that each requirement of the public interest exception test has been met. The record indicates that this scenario  married women seeking to establish paternity in persons other than their husbands  is repeated regularly. The issue frequently evades review because trial courts prefer not to leave the question of a child's paternity unsettled pending appeal. Thus a paternity issue is likely to be determined before [an] appeal can be perfected. [4] Moreover, the efficiency and effectiveness of child support administration is of considerable public interest. Thus we will address the merits of this appeal.