Paternity: Challenge based upon Fraud must be brought within two (2) years or it is barred.

HILL v. BLEVINS, 100504, 2005 OK 11, ___ P.3d ___, Decided 03/01/2005

In a yet to be released for publication decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a paternity claim, based upon an allegedly fraudulent Affidavit acknowledging Paternity, must be brought within two (2) years of actual or constructive notice of the fraud.

Hill and Blevins lived together at the time a child was conceived. They broke up prior to the birth of the child. The child was thereafter born on September 23, 1997. While Hill was incarcerated, Blevins and another man signed an Affidavit Acknowledging Paternity, and on October 17, 1997 a birth certificate was issued. In July, 2003 Hill filed lawsuits alleging paternity and asking the District Court of Kay County to vacate the Affidavit Acknowledging Paternity on the basis of fraud.

The Court reasoning held that: "A statement acknowledging paternity has the same legal effect as an order of paternity entered in a court of administrative proceeding. 10 O.S. 2004 § 70(B)(1)" As such, the "district court has the power to vacate such an order for fraud practiced by the successful party. 12 O.S. 2001 § 1031(4)." Hill, as a putative father, has "an interest entitled to legal protection that is impaired by the" order, and therefore has standing to move for the vacation of that order. Where "the complaining party", i.e. Hill, "alleges that an order has been obtained by fraud, proceedings to vacate the order must be commenced within two years after the order was made." Notice or awareness of the fraud, need not be actual notice but may be constructive notice from public records.

Hill's lawsuit should have been brought within two years after the birth certificate was issued, i.e. by October 17, 1999. Instead, he brought it six years later and was barred by the statute of limitations.

Read the case.