Paternity, Support, and DNA. New Cases from the 2d Department
Today the Second Department Appellate Division issued two new decisions today coming out of cases from the Family Court.
Matter of Escobar v Pagan: A case straight from Maury. The case dealt with the importance of paternity. The child was born in 2013 and the mother and a man named John signed an acknowledgment of paternity which stated that John was the child’s father. At the time, the mother was also engaged in an intimate relationship with another man, Michael. After a DNA test found Michael to be the father, he began paying child support to the mother. Things came to a head when John filed a petition for visitation and Michael filed a petition to determine that he was the father.
The Court ordered both Michael and John to take a DNA test and Michael was confirmed as the father.
The Court the best interests of the child were served by adjudicating Michael's status, since the child already considered Michael to be her father. At the hearing, evidence showed that Michael provided a stable resource for the child. The Court vacated John’s acknowledgment of paternity and said he no longer could have access to the son, because he was not a parent.
Takeaway: A DNA test is more important than a document acknowledging paternity. Michael was a good parent and the boy’s biological father, so the Court did the right thing by finding for the best interest of the child. If Michael was not an active participant in the son’s life, then John could have had a chance to obtain custody.
Matter of Picitelli v Carbone: This case involved a modification of a custody order. A mother wanted to move with her three-year-old child from Nassau County to New Jersey. After the petition was adjourned because of Covid, the mother moved because her lease had expired. The father filed a violation petition. After a hearing, the family court ruled the move could move.
The Court found that In order to modify an existing court-ordered custody or parental access arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child. The court found that in order to relocate, the court must consider a number of factors including 'each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.
Looking at the facts of the case, the court found relocation was appropriate because the mother established that relocating to Union, New Jersey in order to live together with her new husband, who worked in New Jersey, would enhance the child's life socially and provide the child with increased financial stability. The evidence further demonstrated that the mother would foster a positive relationship between the father and the child, and that it would be feasible to preserve the relationship between the father and the child through suitable parental access arrangements.
Takeaway: I would never recommend violating a court order and not following the proper procedure. This case is an example that under exceptional circumstances, the court will not rigidly follow orders and always look at what it believes is in the best interest of the child.
