ILNews

COA mulls 'fraud' in paternity affidavit statute

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A man's paternity cannot be revoked three years after he and the child's mother fraudulently signed an affidavit establishing that he's the legal father, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The court's unanimous ruling paves the way for a possible Indiana Supreme Court interpretation of this particular state statute, which this appellate panel believes was designed to protect a man's paternal rights in the event he was defrauded - not when he was the one doing the deception along with the mother.

Judges ruled on the Porter County case of In the Matter of the Paternity of H.H., Richard Lucito v. Ericka M. Hughes, No. 64A03-0709-431, which dates to the fall of 2003 when Hughes and Lucito started dating. She soon discovered she was pregnant, but both knew Lucito wasn't the father. However, they agreed that he would assume the role of father and in April 2004, the couple signed a paternity affidavit to this effect. The two separated in 2006 and he provided financial support, but the mother later objected to his petition to establish custody, support, and parenting time on grounds that he wasn't H.H.'s biological father.

Lucito asserted he had parental rights pursuant to the paternity affidavit, but the court set aside the affidavit because it was fraudulently executed and denied Lucito's request. State statute allows a court to set one aside after more than 60 days if that affidavit was executed in fraud or a biological test later points out that he wasn't, despite belief.

In today's seven-page decision, Judge Melissa May wrote that the legislature didn't intend Indiana Code 16-37-2-2.1(i) to be used to set aside paternity affidavits executed by a man and a woman who both knew the man wasn't the biological father of the child in the first place.

"Rather, we believe the legislature intended to provide assistance to a man who signed a paternity affidavit due to 'fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact,'" the court wrote.

Under the trial court's ruling, a man could maintain his legal relationship with a child in such a situation only if he had genetic proof of his paternity.

"If a woman may 'use' a man to support her and her children until she tires of him, and then 'dispose' of him as both partner and father, an unwed father would have no guarantee his relationship with a child could be maintained without proof of a genetic relationship. This could not be the intent of the legislature. Neither could it further the public policy of this State, where 'protecting the welfare of children ... is the utmost importance,'" Judge May wrote, citing Straub v. B.M.T. by Todd, 645 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. 1994). "Therefore, once a mother has signed a paternity affidavit, she may not use the paternity statutes to deprive the legal father of his rights, even if he is not the biological father."

The case now goes back to the trial court to decide on issues of custody, support, and parenting time between H.H.'s two legal parents.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  2. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  3. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  4. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  5. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

ADVERTISEMENT