Mandating Fair Hearing and Upholding Child’s Best Interests in Acknowledgment of Paternity Challenges

Introduction

Matter of Stephen B.J.B. v. Marcia N.S.C. (2025 NYSlipOp 01921) arises from related Family Court proceedings in Rockland County concerning a father’s attempt to terminate his child support obligation based on his later-discovered non-biological relationship to the child. Stephen B.J.B. (“appellant”) had signed an acknowledgment of paternity in 2019, which gave rise to a child support order. In December 2022 he petitioned to vacate that acknowledgment and to modify support, alleging fraud and mistake; those petitions were dismissed without hearing. He then sought to end support in March 2023. The Family Court dismissed his support-termination petition and his objections, citing collateral and equitable estoppel. Stephen appealed both dismissals, and the Appellate Division reversed, ordering a hearing on the paternity-challenge issues and dismissing his improperly filed objections.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed two Family Court orders dated May 2 and June 28, 2023:

May 2 order: Dismissal without hearing of petitioner’s request to terminate child support. Reversed on the law, petition reinstated, remitted for further proceedings.
June 28 order: Denial of appellant’s objections to the May 2 order. Reversed on the law, objections dismissed as improperly filed.

The Court held that:

Collateral estoppel did not bar relitigation because paternity was never actually litigated in a hearing.
Equitable estoppel could not be applied without first holding a statutory hearing on alleged fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact under Family Court Act § 516-a(b).
The child’s best interests require a hearing to determine both grounds to vacate the acknowledgment and whether to estop the father from challenging paternity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Family Court Act § 516-a(b): Permits challenge to paternity acknowledgments after 60 days only upon proof of fraud, duress, or material mistake and requires a hearing to decide those issues.
Matter of Vaskovtsev v. Melska (174 AD3d 633): Affirms that equitable estoppel may bar DNA testing when it conflicts with a child’s best interests.
Matter of Andrew E. v. Angela N.S. (165 AD3d 658): Requires a hearing before ordering genetic marker tests when an acknowledgment is challenged.
Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co. (65 NY2d 449): Defines collateral estoppel’s requirements—identity of issue and full, fair opportunity to litigate.
Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Julio J. (20 NY3d 995): Emphasizes child’s best interests as paramount in equitable estoppel analysis.

Legal Reasoning

1. Inapplicability of Collateral Estoppel: The court found no prior full hearing on the appellant’s claim that the acknowledgment was procured by fraud or mistake. The Family Court’s informal finding during a custody modification appearance did not satisfy the “full and fair opportunity” criterion.

2. Statutory Hearing Requirement: Under F.C.A. § 516-a(b)(iv), any challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after signing must be preceded by a hearing to determine whether fraud, duress, or material mistake exists. Only thereafter may the court consider DNA testing and whether estoppel applies.

3. Equitable Estoppel and Best Interests: Even if grounds to vacate the acknowledgment are proven, the court must hold a hearing to ensure that vacatur or DNA testing would not harm the child’s well-being. Equitable estoppel decisions cannot rest solely on parental representations or earlier informal remarks.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces procedural safeguards in paternity and support litigation:

Family Courts must conduct formal hearings on fraud, duress, or material mistake before dismissing paternity-challenge petitions.
Collateral estoppel cannot be invoked absent a prior fully litigated hearing, preserving litigants’ rights to procedural due process.
Child’s best interests remain the lodestar in deciding whether to permit or estop challenges to legal parentage.

Future litigants will rely on this precedent to demand hearings on underlying facts before estoppel or support orders are imposed. Courts will be alerted that informal in-court remarks during unrelated proceedings are insufficient to preclude full adjudication of paternity disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Acknowledgment of Paternity: A signed document declaring a man to be a child’s legal father. After 60 days, vacating it requires proof of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact.
F.C.A. § 516-a(b)(iv): The statute governing how and when a signed paternity acknowledgment can be undone.
Equitable Estoppel: A legal doctrine preventing someone from reversing a statement or action if another person relied on it to their detriment, especially a child’s reliance on a father figure.
Collateral Estoppel: Bars relitigation of an issue already decided in a full and fair prior hearing.
Best Interests of the Child: The guiding principle in all family law matters, requiring courts to prioritize a child’s welfare and stability.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division’s decision in Matter of Stephen B.J.B. v. Marcia N.S.C. reaffirms due process rights in paternity and support cases by mandating hearings on allegations of fraud, duress, or mistake before any estoppel or dismissal. It underscores that no party may rely on informal courtroom statements or prior non-adversarial rulings to bar essential litigation, and places the child’s best interests at the forefront of every determination about parentage and support. This precedent will guide lower courts to respect both procedural requirements and the paramount goal of safeguarding children’s well-being.