Appellate judges disagree about dismissal of paternity petition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court in dismissing a paternity petition, but one judge dissented, saying the ruling now leaves the child with no legally recognized father.

In In the Matter of the Paternity of S.C.; K.C. v. C.C. and B.H., No. 30A01-1107-JP-322, CC. and B.H. had disputed who was father of S.C., a child born to mother K.C. in 2008.

K.C. and C.C. began dating in high school, and both knew B.H. At some point, K.C. had a sexual relationship with B.H., and in 2007, she was at B.H.’s house when she learned she was pregnant.

K.C. told C.C. about the pregnancy and said she believed he was the father, although she wondered if the child might be B.H.’s. She ended her relationship with B.H., and C.C. was with her when she gave birth.

On July 29, 2008, B.H. filed a verified petition for immediate paternity order in the Fayette Circuit Court, alleging he was S.C.’s father, requesting an order that the mother and S.C. submit to a DNA test, and asking that it be performed before K.C. and S.C.’s discharge from the hospital.

K.C. and S.C. submitted to blood tests, and on Aug. 4, 2008, the DNA Diagnostic Center in Fairfield, Ohio issued a DNA test report indicating a 99.9997% probability that B.H. was S.C.’s biological father.

K.C. and B.H. received the DNA test results in October. About a week later, C.C., pro se, and on behalf of S.C., filed a verified petition to establish paternity in the Hancock Circuit Court. He alleged that he was S.C.’s father based upon a July 30 paternity affidavit he and K.C. created. On Oct. 22, the Hancock Circuit Court issued an order establishing C.C.’s paternity; the Fayette Circuit Court held a hearing on B.H.’s paternity action, ultimately dismissing it, holding that it was not a petition for paternity, but rather a petition to require DNA testing.  

On June 25, 2010, B.H., by counsel, filed his verified petition for relief of judgment for fraud upon the court (the petition for relief) in the Hancock Circuit Court, alleging that C.C.’s paternity order was obtained through fraud. The Hancock Circuit Court granted B.H.’s petition, holding – among other findings – the mother had suspected the child might be B.H.’s and that her lawyer had not notified B.H. of the petition for paternity that C.C. had filed in Hancock County.

The COA affirmed the court’s decision to set aside C.C.’s paternity petition, writing, “We reiterate that this decision does not leave S.C. without a father and Mother without options. Even assuming that the July 31, 2008 DNA test was faulty or legally inadmissible, the parties are free to have another test performed and do what they will depending upon those results, including the pursuit of support proceedings against B.H. or the initiation of adoption proceedings by C.C.”

But Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing, “All that has occurred here is the judicially imposed removal of that obligation since B.H. has not been legally recognized as S.C.’s father. This leads to an unjust result whereby B.H. is free to abandon his claim to S.C.’s paternity leaving S.C. with no one obliged to support her.”



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.