Facts: When Mother and Father met, Mother was already pregnant.

They began a relationship. Father was present at Child’s birth, and the three of them lived together as a family for several years.

Three and a half years after Child’s birth, Father and Mother signed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity (VAP) form where Father acknowledged paternity of Child even though he knew he was not the biological father. Father explained he “felt it was something right to do.”

Mother and Father end their relationship.

Three and a half years after Father acknowledged paternity, Mother petitions for child support.

Father moved to dismiss. He claimed a “material mistake of fact” even though both parties knew he wasn’t the biological father when the VAP was signed. He asked that the VAP be rescinded and declared void.

Although Father claimed he did not appreciate the consequences of signing the VAP, he admitted he “pretty much knew what [he] was doing” when he signed it.

The trial court found the VAP should not be set aside. Father was ordered to pay child support.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

A VAP constitutes a legal finding of paternity on the person named as the father of the child. Unless it is rescinded within 60 days, a VAP is conclusive proof of the person’s paternity.

When a VAP is not rescinded within 60 days, it can be challenged within five years of its execution on the grounds of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact. The burden of proof is on the party challenging the VAP.

The Court agreed there was no legal basis for resending the VAP:

Father claims that he proved a material mistake of fact. Specifically, the “material mistake of fact [wa]s that [Father] did not know or appreciate the consequences of executing the VAP.” One of those consequences was the obligation to support Child, and he complains that “the VAP does not clearly explain that by signing . . . the person will be obligated to pay child support.” Father invites this Court to “review the VAP to determine how small the print actually is” and to see that “the VAP did not adequately warn him that he would have to pay support for [Child] simply by signing it.”

Unfortunately for Father’s appeal, we did read the VAP. On its second page, the page that he signed, the VAP provides that “[a]s the legal father you will have . . . [t]he responsibility of providing financial and medical support.” The VAP also provides that “[t]he court may enter an order, which will direct you to provide money for the financial support of your child and to provide for your child’s medical care.” So we find no merit to Father’s contention that the VAP did not adequately warn him of the consequences of signing.

But even were we to access Father’s claim that he did not appreciate the consequences of signing the VAP, this would not amount to a material mistake of fact. Father’s claim that he did not appreciate the consequences of his actions refers to legal consequences. Ignorance of legal consequences constitutes a mistake of law. So Father failed to present a statutory basis for rescinding the VAP.

*     *     *     *     *

The State has an interest in seeing that children are supported by their parents. . . . If a man executes a VAP, he acknowledges that he accepts responsibility of being a parent to the child. Upholding child support obligations imposed on men who voluntarily legitimated a child knowing that they were not the biological father does not violate this state’s public policy of ensuring that children are supported by their parent’s where a parent voluntarily undertook the legal responsibility to parent the child.

The Court affirmed the trial court.

K.O.’s Comment: “Unfortunately for Father’s appeal, we did read the VAP.”

How many of you winced when you read that?

State ex rel. Kimberly C. v. Gordon S. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, November 30, 2020).

I hope you found this helpful. If you think others could find it useful, please share it using the sharing buttons below.