Court Opinion

ID: 9739403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:14:26.151397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:29:56.768070
License: Public Domain

*480HARRIS, Justice.
A few weeks before trial of this dissolution of marriage proceeding it was revealed that the husband was not the natural father of a child who is the subject of this custody dispute. In Petition of Ash, 507 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Iowa 1993), we rejected the equitable parent doctrine. The husband in the present case, pursuing parental rights regarding a child born during the marriage and whom he had considered his own, asks that we reconsider the rejection announced in Ash. In the alternative, he asks that the mother be equitably estopped from denying he is the father of the child. We conclude that Ash is not controlling under the circumstances here. We therefore reverse and remand.
John and Amy Gallagher were married in 1988. In 1991, while the parties were residing together as husband and wife, a child, Riley, was conceived and born. John was listed on the official birth certificate as the child’s natural father. Understandably, John considered the child to be his own, and the two developed a father/daughter relationship. Sometime during 1992 John and Amy started to experience marital problems, and in 1993 John filed a dissolution of marriage petition. Before trial the district court placed joint custody of Riley in both John and Amy.
John and Amy agreed to have a home study performed for the purposes of recommending child placement. The home study concluded John would be the appropriate parent for custody of Riley. Subsequently, only three weeks prior to trial, Amy for the first time informed John he was not Riley’s natural father. Blood tests confirmed this and the parties so stipulated.
On Amy’s application for adjudication of law points the trial court held that John, as neither biological nor adoptive father, had no parental rights. The court also expressly rejected the theory of equitable estoppel and granted summary judgment against John. We granted John permission to bring this interlocutory appeal from that ruling. Other issues in the dissolution proceeding remain pending in district court.
Our review of the trial court’s legal conclusions is on error. Lihs v. Lihs, 504 N.W.2d 890, 892 (Iowa 1993). Crucial factual issues are uncontroverted. Other unresolved controverted facts cannot form a basis for the adjudication and on review must therefore be presumed in favor of the party against whom the adjudication was entered. See Rasmussen v. Nebraska Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 170 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1969).
I. In prior cases we have rejected the equitable parent doctrine. In doing so under the facts in Ash, we pointed out that Ash
is a stranger to the child. He is an interested third party. He is not the child’s biological father. He is not her adoptive father. He is not her stepfather. He is not her foster parent. He never married the child’s mother. He is merely a man who lived with — and cared for — her mother, and who, understandably, became smitten with fatherhood after the child’s birth.
507 N.W.2d at 404. We also said that no common law or statutory authority for the doctrine existed under those circumstances. We explained:
Straining to legitimize such an action under current law would foster a superfluity of claims by parties who shared a special relationship with children based neither upon affinity nor consanguinity.
Id. Later, in In re Halvorsen, 521 N.W.2d 725, 728 (Iowa 1994), we refused to apply equitable estoppel because the claimant “failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he had a lack of knowledge of the true fact that he was not the biological father....”
The facts assumed in the adjudication here are far different. Here the biological fact of nonpaternity appeared unexpectedly in contradiction of an existing family relationship. In every way, Riley was received by both John and Amy as their daughter, and the family relationship developed accordingly. John was no stranger, or even a mere stepfather. The facts here demonstrate how different it is when a child is born into a marriage, even though (unknown to the father) it is conceived outside it.
The relationship between the husband and child in such a situation is highly likely to be much closer than those between a child and a *481man whose relationship is derived only as an adjunct to that man’s relationship with the child’s mother. Where both the child and the husband reasonably believe they share a biological relationship, the bonding should— and can be expected to — develop to such a stage that its rupture might be devastating to both. Devastation to the child is of course the first and paramount concern because the best interest of the child is the dominating consideration in all child custody disputes. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(15). See Halvorsen, 521 N.W.2d at 729.
Ash furnished no factual basis for adoption of the equitable parent doctrine in Iowa. Applying general equitable principles, however, we believe equitable parenthood may be established in a proper ease by a father who establishes all the following: (1) he was married to the mother when the child is conceived and bom; (2) he reasonably believes he is the child’s father; (3) he establishes a parental relationship with the child; and (4) shows that judicial recognition of the relationship is in the child’s best interest.
In Ash we carefully contrasted the facts from those in Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich.App. 601, 408 N.W.2d 516 (1987). Focusing on the best interest of the child, we expressed great concern with the lack of any obligation on the part of a stepparent claimant to pay child support. Ash, 507 N.W.2d at 404. Of course, willingness to support the child, though an important one, is only one factor in the determination of a child’s best interest. But we think it is significant that John has supported Riley from her birth and is struggling by this action to become obligated to continue doing so. Willingness to support the child, though an incomplete test of a child’s best interest, is surely a crucial consideration in the determination. The point was made in In re Paternity of D.L.H., 142 Wis.2d 606, 419 N.W.2d 283, 288 (App.1987), as follows:
Whereas in most cases estoppel will not lie because of the necessity for financial support from the biological father, we note here the availability of support from the husband and his apparent willingness to provide it. The guardian ad litem’s recommendation should also be considered by the trial court for this purpose.
II. To apply the equitable parent doctrine under these facts is entirely consistent with the principles underlying equitable estoppel. Issues of paternity, child custody, and child support are determined by a court of equity. Metten v. Benge, 366 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1985); Bruce v. Sarver, 472 N.W.2d 631, 632 (Iowa App.1991); see also Iowa Code chs. 252A (child support), 598A (child custody), 600B (paternity). Courts of equity may exercise broad powers in applying equitable principles. Sixty-Seventh Minn. State Senate v. Beens, 406 U.S. 187, 191, 92 S.Ct. 1477, 1481, 32 L.Ed.2d 1, 7 (1972); State ex rel. Weede v. Bechtel, 244 Iowa 785, 818-19, 56 N.W.2d 173, 191 (1952) (stating the authority of a court to grant relief to avoid injustice is inherent in the broad discretionary power of equity); Helton v. Crawley, 241 Iowa 296, 311-12, 41 N.W.2d 60, 70 (1950) (stating the inherent power of a court of equity over infants is very wide). One such equitable principle is the doctrine of estoppel.
Estoppel was long available in certain situations converse to the one appearing here; more than a century ago we held that one who marries a woman known by him to be enceinte is regarded by the law as adopting the child into his family at its birth, and he becomes liable for its support as a parent, and an action against the natural father for its support will not he. State v. Shoemaker, 62 Iowa 343, 344, 17 N.W. 589, 589-90 (1883). We reasoned that such a child
is received into the family of the husband, who stands as to it in loco parentis. This being the law, [the child] enters into the marriage contract between the mother and the husband. When this relationship is established, the law raises a conclusive presumption the husband is the father of the wife’s ... child.
Id. We need not hold that any such presumption exists today. But we do note that a number of jurisdictions have estopped the husband from denying paternity in divorce proceedings. See Annotation, Liability of Mother’s Husband, Not the Father of Her Illegitimate Child, For its Support, 90 *482A.L.R.2d 583 (1963); 14 C.J.S. Children Out-of-Wedlock § 33 (1991); 10 Am.Jur.2d Bastards § 69 (1963). And the number of jurisdictions applying equitable estoppel in paternity situations is growing. See Allan Stephens, Annotation, Parental Rights of Man Who Is Not Biological or Adoptive Father of Child but Was Husband or Cohabitant of Mother When Child Was Conceived or Born, 84 A.L.R.4th 655 (1991); 14 C.J.S. Children Out-of-Wedlock § 33 (1991). We left the door open for such application in Halvorsen, 521 N.W.2d at 728 (elements of equitable estoppel in a paternity case not met by clear and convincing evidence).
Equitable estoppel is a doctrine based on fair dealing, good faith, and justice. The elements of equitable estoppel are as follows:
1. A false representation or concealment of a material fact;
2. A lack of knowledge of the true facts on the part of the actor;
3. The intention that the representation or concealment be acted upon; and
4. Reliance thereon by the party to whom it is made, to his or her prejudice and injury.
Id. These four elements clearly appear here. So long as it served her purposes Amy concealed from John that Riley was not his natural daughter. Indeed her every indication would lead John to think Riley was a child of their marriage. John was listed as father on the birth certificate. As late as when the home study was made in this proceeding, Amy did not hint John was not the biological father and it was because of Amy’s concealment that John was unaware of the truth. Amy’s intent that John act on her concealment can easily be inferred. She was afraid John would divorce her for having an affair. When dissolution proceedings were undertaken she continued her concealment in the hope of custody and support. She was prompted to reveal the truth only when the home placement study favored John as Riley’s custodian. Without doubt John relied on the concealment to his detriment. He developed emotional ties with Riley and acknowledged her to the world as his daughter.
A number of reasons exist for adopting the equitable parent doctrine in dissolution cases such as this one, where paternity is an issue. These are essentially the same considerations that underlie any application of estop-pel. Several other jurisdictions have followed this rationale and estopped a wife from challenging paternity in dissolution related proceedings subsequent to dissolution. Ex parte Presse, 554 So.2d 406, 411 (Ala.1989) (applying doctrine of collateral estoppel); In re Marriage of O’Brien, 13 Kan.App.2d 402, 772 P.2d 278, 283, aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 245 Kan. 591, 783 P.2d 331 (1989) (wife estopped from denying paternity); Atkinson v. Atkinson, 160 Mich.App. 601, 408 N.W.2d 516, 519 (1987) (creating “equitable parent” doctrine); Boyles v. Boyles, 95 A.D.2d 95, 466 N.Y.S.2d 762, 765 (1983) (applying traditional theory of estoppel); Nelson v. Nelson, 10 Ohio App.3d 36, 460 N.E.2d 653, 654-55 (1983) (estopping wife from denying parentage to avoid “father-shopping” and the problem of staleness of evidence); Hodge v. Hodge, 84 Or.App. 62, 733 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1987) (applying equitable estoppel); Adoption of Young, 469 Pa. 141, 364 A.2d 1307, 1313 (1976) (invoking collateral estoppel); In re Paternity of D.L.H., 142 Wis.2d 606, 419 N.W.2d 283, 286-87 (1987) (invoking equitable estoppel).
III. As between himself and Amy, John clearly can establish the elements of equitable parenthood. The record is however incomplete. The case must be remanded for further proceedings in which John must show that the adjudication he seeks is in Riley’s best interest. We note that any adjudication on the present record would not bind Riley or her biological father. Natural parents have fundamental rights that must be addressed. In re B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239, 246 (Iowa 1992). The rights of natural parents of course are not unlimited and can be waived by abandonment. In re M.M.S., 502 N.W.2d 4, 8-9 (Iowa 1993). Indeed we recently pointed out that:
A parent who fails to develop a relationship with his or her child while that child is establishing a family relationship with [someone else] must recognize the child thereby puts down roots that are of critical *483importance. Courts must carefully deal with those roots in determining the child’s best interests.
Knell v. Schriever, 537 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Iowa 1995).
IV. Because the parties did not raise the issue, we have not considered the effect of a recent statutory amendment. A year after our decision in Ash, the Iowa legislature enacted Iowa Code section 600B.41A. 1994 Iowa Acts, ch. 1171, § 48. This section states in pertinent part:
1. Paternity which is legally established may be overcome as provided in this section if subsequent blood or genetic testing indicates that the previously established father of a child is not the biological father of the child. Unless otherwise provided in this section, this section applies to the overcoming of paternity which has been established according to any of the means provided in section 252A.3, subsection 9, by operation of law when the established father and the mother of the child are or were married to each other, or as determined by a court of this state under any other applicable chapter.
[[Image here]]
3. Establishment of paternity may be overcome under this section if all of the following conditions are met: ...
[[Image here]]
g. The court finds that it is in the best interests of the child to overcome the establishment of paternity. In determining the best interests of the child, the court shall consider all of the following:
(1) The age of the child.
(2) The length of time since the establishment of paternity.
(3) The previous relationship between the child and the established father, including but not limited to the duration and frequency of any time periods during which the child and established father resided in the same household or engaged in a parent-child relationship as defined in section 600A.2.
(4) The possibility that the child could benefit by establishing the child’s actual paternity.

(5)Additional factors which the court determines are relevant to the individual situation.

600B.41A (1995) (emphasis added). Although this section was not argued here, it may control future eases presenting similar issues.
We thus reverse the trial court’s adjudication of law points and remand the case for further proceedings in conformance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All justices concur except TERNUS, J., and McGIVERIN, C.J., and CARTER and LAVORATO, JJ., who dissent.