Onorina C.T. v. Ricardo R.E.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. P-18199-15,2018–03972 |
| Citation | 172 A.D.3d 726,99 N.Y.S.3d 374 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ONORINA C.T. (Anonymous), Petitioner-Respondent, v. RICARDO R.E. (Anonymous), et al., Respondents-Respondents; Aaron R.C. (Anonymous), NonParty-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Janet Neustaetter, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Laura Solecki of counsel), attorney for the child, the nonparty-appellant.
Marjorie P. Cohen, New York, NY, for petitioner-respondent.
Richard Cardinale, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent-respondent Ricardo R. E.
Louisa Floyd, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent-respondent Jorge E. T.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Aaron R.C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Maria Arias, J.), dated February 5, 2018. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition to adjudicate the respondent Ricardo R.E. the father of the subject child and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, and the respondent Ricardo R.E. is adjudicated the father of the subject child.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to adjudicate the respondent Ricardo R.E. the father of the subject child. The child was conceived and born while the petitioner was married to another man, the respondent Jorge E.T. (hereinafter the husband). The petition alleged that the husband was the petitioner's sex trafficker and that she conceived the child while he was out of the country. The petition further alleged that Ricardo R.E. is the biological father of the child, he is named as the father on the child's birth certificate, and he has supported the child and raised the child as his since birth. The petitioner did not testify at the fact-finding hearing. Ricardo R.E. testified that he began having a sexual relationship with the petitioner in 2011, and she told him in October 2011 that she was pregnant with his child, at which time she came to live with him. He testified that he was present for the child's birth in July 2012, and he has raised the child from birth as his father. The husband testified that he had returned to the country in September 2011 and had engaged in sexual activity, including intercourse, with the petitioner until November 2011, when she told him that she was pregnant with another man's child and left the husband. After the fact-finding hearing, the Family Court determined that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of legitimacy by clear and convincing evidence and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without determining the issue of equitable estoppel raised by the petitioner and Ricardo R.E.
"Paternity proceedings, brought pursuant to article 5 of the Family Court Act, have a twofold purpose: to determine paternity and to secure support for the child" ( Matter of Department of Social Servs. v. Jay W. , 105 A.D.2d 19, 23, 482 N.Y.S.2d 810 ). "Although at one time the objective of paternity proceedings was merely to prevent a child born out of wedlock from becoming a public charge, it is now well established that the appropriate emphasis must be upon the welfare of the child" ( Matter of L. Pamela P. v. Frank S. , 59 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 462 N.Y.S.2d 819, 449 N.E.2d 713 ). Pursuant to Family Court Act § 532(a), when a paternity petition is filed, the Family Court, "on the court's own motion or the motion of any party, shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests." However, "[n]o such test shall be ordered ... upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of res judicata, equitable estoppel, or the presumption of legitimacy of a child born to a married woman" ( Family Ct. Act § 532[a] ; see Family Ct. Act § 418[a] ). Thus, where, as here, paternity is in issue, the Family Court is required to order biological tests unless it relies upon the best interests of the child exception and, if so, it must "justify its refusal to order [such] tests" ( Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D. , 7 N.Y.3d 320, 329, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610 ; see Matter of Christopher YY. v. Jessica ZZ. , 159 A.D.3d 18, 22, 69 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v. James D. , 147 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 48 N.Y.S.3d 248 ; Matter of Tralisa R. v. Max S. , 145 A.D.3d 727, 727–728, 43 N.Y.S.3d 427 ).
"A child born during marriage is presumed to be the biological product of the marriage and this presumption has been described as ‘one of the strongest and most persuasive known to the law’ " ( David L. v. Cindy Pearl L. , 208 A.D.2d 502, 503, 617 N.Y.S.2d 57, quoting Matter of Findlay , 253 N.Y. 1, 7, 170 N.E. 471 ). Here, because the subject child was conceived and born during the marriage, there is a presumption that the child is the legitimate child of both the petitioner and the husband (see Domestic Relations Law § 24[1] ; Family Ct. Act § 417 ; Matter of Christopher YY. v. Jessica ZZ. , 159 A.D.3d at 26–28, 69 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; Matter of Maria–Irene D. [Carlo A. v. Han Ming T.] , 153 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 61 N.Y.S.3d 221 ; Matter of Carl Henry P. v. Tiwiana L. , 82 A.D.3d 1245, 1246, 919 N.Y.S.2d 384 ). However, this presumption of legitimacy may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence "excluding the husband as the father or otherwise tending to disprove legitimacy" ( Matter of Barbara S. v. Michael I. , 24 A.D.3d 451, 452, 805 N.Y.S.2d 425 ).
Even if the presumption of legitimacy applies, the Family Court must proceed to an analysis of the best interests of the child before deciding whether to order a test (see Matter of Mario WW. v. Kristin XX. , 149 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 51 N.Y.S.3d 678 ). To that end, the "paramount concern" in a proceeding to establish paternity is the best interests of the child, and the Family Court should hold a hearing addressed to that determination ( Matter of Juanita A. v. Kenneth Mark N. , 15 N.Y.3d 1, 5, 904 N.Y.S.2d 293, 930 N.E.2d 214 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ). Importantly, biology is not dispositive in a court's paternity determination (see id. at 3, 904 N.Y.S.2d 293, 930 N.E.2d 214 ; Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D. , 7 N.Y.3d at 326, 330, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610 ; Matter of Carlos O. v. Maria G. , 149 A.D.3d 945, 946–947, 52 N.Y.S.3d 392 ; Matter of Melissa S. v. Frederick T. , 8 A.D.3d 738, 738–739, 777 N.Y.S.2d 774 ; Matter of Richard W. v. Roberta Y. , 240 A.D.2d 812, 814, 658 N.Y.S.2d 506 ; see also Family Ct. Act §§ 532[a] ; 418[a]; Domestic Relations Law § 73 ; Matter of Joshua AA. v. Jessica BB. , 132 A.D.3d 1107, 1108, 19 N.Y.S.3d 116 ).
In the present case, we agree with the Family Court that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of legitimacy by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Barbara S. v. Michael I. , 24 A.D.3d at 453, 805 N.Y.S.2d 425 ). Nevertheless, regardless of the applicability of the presumption of legitimacy, the Family Court should not have refused to consider the issue of equitable estoppel raised by the petitioner and Ricardo R.E. in response to the husband's assertion of paternity (see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v. James D. , 147 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 48 N.Y.S.3d 248 ; Matter of Marilene S. v. David H. , 85 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 925 N.Y.S.2d 871 ; Matter of Ruby M.M. v. Moses K. , 18 A.D.3d 471, 472, 795 N.Y.S.2d 73 ; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs., Suffolk County DSS v. Connolly , 303 A.D.2d 754, 756 N.Y.S.2d 866 ). As relevant here, the doctrine "is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man" ( Matter of John J. v. Kayla I. , 137 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 28 N.Y.S.3d 485 []; see Matter of Stephen N. v. Amanda O. , 140 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 33 N.Y.S.3d 496 ; see also Family Ct. Act § 522 ). It is significant that "courts impose equitable estoppel to protect the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship" ( Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D. , 7 N.Y.3d at 327, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v. James D. , 147 A.D.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial