Stacy M. v. Jason M. - 290 Neb. 141, 858 N.W.2d 852 (2015)

Rule:

The parentage of a child born during a marriage is traditionally contested, if at all, in dissolution proceedings. The marital presumption of paternity can be rebutted at that time. A district court in a dissolution proceeding has jurisdiction to resolve a disputed issue of paternity. Even if paternity is not directly placed in issue or litigated by the parties to a dissolution proceeding, any dissolution decree which orders child support implicitly makes a final determination of paternity. When the parties fail to submit evidence at the dissolution proceeding rebutting the presumption of paternity, the dissolution court can find paternity based on the presumption alone. The trial court necessarily makes such a finding when it orders child support, because the trial court could not order child support without finding that a presumed father is the father of the child. Thus, a dissolution decree which orders child support is a legal determination of paternity. As a result, any dissolution decree that orders child support is res judicata on the issue of paternity. Under common law, the issue cannot be relitigated except under very limited circumstances through a motion to vacate or modify the decree. 

Facts:

After the dissolution of his marriage became final, Jason M. discovered through genetic testing that he was not the biological father of a child born during the marriage. He sought equitable relief in the form of an order suspending his child support obligation without terminating the parental relationship. He now appeals from an order denying his requested relief.

Issue:

Was Jason M. entitled to suspension of his child support obligation without terminating his parental relationship?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that Jason M. was not entitled to suspension of his child support obligation without terminating his parental relationship, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1412.01 (Reissue 2008), because his paternity of the child was presumed, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-377 (Reissue 2008), and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1412.01 (Reissue 2008) listed a child support obligation as a form of a legal determination of paternity which could be challenged through genetic testing, and permitted, but did not require, a court to set aside a child support obligation when paternity was disestablished, but he did not seek to set aside this legal determination of his paternity, due to his former marriage to Stacy M., the child's mother, despite apparent grounds to do so.