Preview:

FILED
Dec 21 2010, 8:21 am

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALICE L. BARTANEN BLEVINS Bartanen Law Office, LLC Salem, Indiana

of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KATHY BRADLEY Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN RE PATERNITY OF D.L. C.L., Appellant-Respondent, vs. Y.B., Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 88A01-1002-JP-224

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Robert L. Bennett, Judge Cause No. 88C01-9604-JP-74

December 21, 2010 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Y.B. ("Mother") gave birth to D.L. out of wedlock. In 1996, Mother brought a paternity action against C.L., who admitted to paternity and was ordered to pay child support. For over ten years, C.L. shared the financial costs of raising D.L. with Mother and exercised regular visitation with D.L. Eventually, C.L. and Mother agreed to genetic testing, which excluded C.L. as D.L.'s biological father. Genetic testing established another man as D.L.'s biological father, and paternity was formally established in that man. At that time, C.L. was behind on his child support payments. He asked the trial court to be relieved from paying the child support arrearage because the paternity test showed that he is not D.L.'s biological father. The trial court denied his request, and C.L. appeals. We conclude that because C.L.'s paternity was vacated due to mistake of fact, his child support, including any arrearage, must be terminated. Therefore, we reverse and remand. Facts and Procedural History D.L. was born on December 16, 1993. On April 24, 1996, Mother and the

Washington County prosecutor filed a petition to establish paternity and compel support, which alleged that C.L. was the biological father of D.L. and his younger brother.1 On June 13, 1996, a hearing on the petition was held, and C.L. admitted to being the father of D.L. and his brother. On June 26, 1996, the trial court entered an order finding C.L. to be the

The State is representing its interests in this matter because Mother is a Title IV-D recipient. See Collier v. Collier, 702 N.E.2d 351, 353 (Ind. 1998) (observing that Ind. Code

Download Paternity of D.L.; C.L. v. Y.B..pdf

Indiana Law