You are here: / / BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.

BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.

The Second Department determined the acknowledged biological father’s paternity petition was properly dismissed in the best interests of the child:

​

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 532(a), “[t]he court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic marker tests or DNA tests and, 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 . . . to aid in the determination of whether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No such test shall be ordered, however, 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” (emphasis added). ” The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the subject child'” … . ” In situations where an individual has assumed the role of a father and where the petitioner putative father has neglected to assume such a role, the petitioning putative father has been estopped from asserting a claim of paternity'” … . “The issue of equitable estoppel does not involve the equities between [or among] the . . . adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child”… .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to deny the petition. Among other things, the petitioner provided limited financial support for the child and had seen the child only approximately 20 times over the course of the child’s life. Additionally, the respondent’s husband, whose name appears on the birth certificate, had assumed the role of the child’s father, providing for the child financially and emotionally and living with the respondent and their other children as a family unit consistently for the entirety of the child’s life. As such, although the parties agreed that the petitioner was the child’s biological father, the court properly estopped the petitioner from asserting any paternity claim in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Carlos O. v Maria G., 2017 NY Slip Op 02993, 2nd Dept 4-19-17

 

FAMILY LAW (BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)/ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted Reversible “Mode of Proceedings” Error
NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO REMOVE A TRUSTEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY... PARTY FACING POSSIBLE INCARCERATION IN SUPPORT PROCEEDINGS IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE...