Opinion ID: 1191883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alaska's Prior Cases on Paternity by Estoppel Support a Broad Emotional Harm Standard of Prejudice.

Text: Given this court's prior decisions on paternity by estoppel, the trial court's view of the doctrine is understandable. We first acknowledged the doctrine of paternity by estoppel more than a decade ago in H.P.A. v. S.C.A. [3] There we observed that [u]nder normal circumstances it is the biological parents who shoulder the legal responsibility for the welfare of their offspring. [4] But we also recognized that [t]here are situations . . . where a person's conduct towards an infant can give rise to a constructive parental relationship such that one can be adjudged a legal parent even if not biologically the same. [5] We traced paternity by estoppel to the well-established rule of equitable estoppel, which is traditionally invoked upon proof of three elements: conduct or words amounting to a representation, reasonable reliance, and resulting prejudice. [6] Citing the California Court of Appeal's 1961 ruling in Clevenger v. Clevenger, [7] we indicated that, in the paternity context, the first two elements of estoppelrepresentation and reliancewould be met when: (1) the husband directly or implicitly represented to the child that he is the father; (2) the husband intended the child to rely on this representation; (3) the child did rely on it and treated the husband as a father; and (4) the child remained ignorant of the true facts. [8] But we had no occasion in H.P.A. to consider the third element of estoppelprejudice. Without mentioning this element, we remanded the case to the trial court, because its findings on estoppel failed to address H.P.A.'s allegation that his wife had misled him as to the existence of paternity. [9] We addressed the third element of paternity by estoppel when we next considered the doctrine eight years later in Wright v. Black. [10] In Wright, we stated that the application of equitable estoppel to paternity cases advances sound policies in the law[.] [11] We cited Clevenger for the proposition that, in a case involving paternity by estoppel, the traditional requirement of prejudice can be met in one of three ways: (1) the child is deprived of the mother's potential action to hold the natural father responsible for the support of the child; (2) the child gives his love and affection to the husband, expecting care and support until adulthood. Denying paternity later inflicts an emotional injury on the child; (3) the child, who has held himself out as legitimate, suffers a social injury when that status is removed. [12] We went on to apply Clevenger 's formulation of the prejudice requirement, affirming the trial court's decision, which barred Michael Wright from denying his paternal duty to support his former wife Robyn's five-year-old son, Damon. [13] Because Damon had come to rely on Michael as his father, and because this reliance would have made it difficult for Damon to sever his bonds to Michael without suffering emotional harm, we held that the Clevenger standards had been met. [14] Our third and most recent decision on paternity by estoppel is K.E. v. J.W. [15] There, in a divorce proceeding, the wife, K.E., requested the trial court to hold her husband, J.W., responsible for post-divorce support of L.E. L.E. was born to K.E. during the marriage, but was not biologically J.W.'s daughter. [16] The trial court declined to estop J.W. from denying paternity and refused K.E.'s request for child support, even though J.W. had treated L.E. as his daughter for two years before he separated from K.E. [17] We affirmed the trial court's decision. [18] While we acknowledged the Clevenger standard as being applicable, [19] we concluded that the court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the Clevenger prejudice standard had not been met under the specific facts presentedparticularly because J.W. had worked away from home and had actually spent only 90 to 180 days with L.E. during the two years before the parties separated. [20]