7 N.Y.3d 320 (2006)

A man who mistakenly represents himself as a child’s father may be estopped from denying paternity and ordered to pay child support when the child justifiably relied on the man’s representation of paternity, to the child’s detriment; this determination rests on the best interests of the child.

Summary

Shondel J. gave birth to a daughter in Guyana and named Mark D. as the father. Although Mark was in New York when the child was born, he provided financial support and later signed documents affirming his paternity, even naming the child as his life insurance beneficiary. Years later, in a child support proceeding, Mark requested DNA testing, which revealed he was not the biological father. The Family Court applied equitable estoppel, declaring Mark the father, finding that he held himself out as such, and the child relied on that representation. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing the child’s best interests and the legislative recognition of paternity by estoppel.

Facts

Shondel J. and Mark D. had a brief relationship in Guyana in 1995. In January 1996, Shondel gave birth to a daughter and named Mark as the father. Mark, despite being in New York, provided financial support for the child. In a notarized statement, Mark declared he was “convinced” he was the child’s father and accepted paternal responsibilities. He signed a Guyana registry acknowledging paternity and authorized changing the child’s last name to his. He named the child as the primary beneficiary on his life insurance policy and sent Shondel monthly support payments.

Procedural History

In 2000, Shondel commenced a Family Court Act article 5 proceeding, seeking orders of filiation and support. Mark initially did not contest paternity but later requested DNA testing, which excluded him as the biological father. The hearing examiner dismissed Shondel’s petition, but Family Court sustained her objection and appointed a law guardian. After a trial on equitable estoppel, Family Court entered an order of filiation and awarded child support retroactive to the proceeding’s commencement. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a man who is not the biological father of a child can be equitably estopped from denying paternity and be required to pay child support when he held himself out to be the father, and the child relied on that representation to her detriment?

2. Whether Family Court Act § 418(a) is contradictory in mandating scientific testing of biological paternity in support proceedings while also making such tests discretionary based on the best interests of the child?

Holding

1. Yes, because the child justifiably relied on Mark’s representations that he was her father, forming a bond with him, to her ultimate detriment, and therefore, he is estopped from denying paternity.

2. No, because the statute balances the child’s interest in knowing their biological father with the interest in maintaining a relationship with the man who they believe is their father; the statute requires Family Court to justify its refusal to order biological tests when paternity is in issue.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that equitable estoppel prevents someone from asserting a right after leading another to believe the right would not be asserted, resulting in loss or prejudice. New York courts have consistently applied estoppel in paternity cases, prioritizing the child’s best interests. Here, Mark expressly represented himself as the child’s father in multiple documents and actions, including a sworn statement, registry, and visitation petition. The child justifiably relied on these representations, forming a close relationship with Mark, referring to him as