This pop quiz involves a 2002 law which imposes a statute of limitations of two years for challenging another man’s claim of paternity. The main purpose of the law is to encourage stability for children by ensuring that the question of paternity for children is generally decided within two years of the child’s birth.

For example, if you are married and your wife has a child, the child is presumed to be yours, (even if it really isn’t). So if you, your wife, or some other guy wants to claim that the child isn’t yours, the parentage case has to be filed before the child’s second birthday party.  But to every rule lies an exception – or does it?

In 1999, Tracy became pregnant while living with Keith. She gave birth to a child, Sabrina, and soon after, Tracy and Keith signed papers stating that Keith was the father. However, Tracy had also been sleeping with David. (Because the names of all parties are protected in parentage cases, we just made up some names here.)

Six years later, perhaps inspired by the moment, Tracy told David that he might actually be Sabrina’s father. Trouble was, because Tracy was a drug addict by this time, she wasn’t Sabrina’s primary caretaker any more – Keith had fought for, and received, primary custody from the court. The next year, sadly, Tracy died. Her parents encouraged David to take an informal (that is, not court-ordered) DNA test in March 2007. And of course, it confirmed genetically (but not legally) that he actually was Sabrina’s father – not Keith.

So David off and filed a parentage petition. Keith naturally opposed this because it was long past two years since Keith himself had signed papers acknowledging that he was Sabrina’s father.  David asked that a Guardian Ad Litem (someone chosen by the court to speak for the child’s best interests) be appointed to determine if it was in Sabrina’s interests to have a formal DNA test to determine who was her biological father.

The trial court refused to appoint a GAL, and simply dismissed the case. David appealed.

So the question is: Does two years really mean two years, or is David’s story compelling enough to create an exception to the rule. In other words:

Did the court of appeals agree that David waited too long to fight for paternity (even though the baby was apparently really his)?

(a) No. The appellate court ruled that David was the father because of the unofficial (but highly reliable) DNA test, and that to keep his daughter from him any longer was unfair to David.

(b) No. The appellate court sent the case back to trial court for appointment of guardian ad litem to represent Sabrina’s interests in deciding whether to have an official DNA test because she had a constitutional right to be a party to the action that determined her paternity.

(c) Yes. The appellate court carefully weighed the informal DNA test versus Keith’s long-standing commitment to Sabrina (acknowledging paternity, developing a relationship with her, and being her primary caretaker) and determined that it would not be fair to Keith to take Sabrina away from him after all he had done for her.

(d) Yes. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the statutory time limit had passed, and that that was all that mattered (regardless of what relationship Keith had or didn’t have with Sabrina).

Answer: (b) No, the appellate court sent case back to trial court for appointment of guardian ad litem to represent Sabrina’s interests in determining whether genetic testing should be conducted. The primary concern was not fairness to David, but rather protection of Sabrina’s constitutional rights.

In its reasoning, the court quoted the following from the 1985 case State v. Santos (104 W.2d 142):

Procedural due process already requires that a child must be a party to a paternity action in recognition of the principle that “no individual should be bound by a judgment affecting his or her interests where he has not been made a party to the action.”

A child must not be a party in name only. It is fundamental that parties whose interests are at stake must have an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”  Because a child cannot represent his or her own interests, RCW 26.26.090 requires that a child be represented by a guardian or a guardian ad litem, who in fact protects the child’s interests….

The child’s interest in a paternity proceeding extends beyond the immediacy of support which a potential father might provide. Inheritance rights and familial bonds are also at stake. Substantive due process, we believe, requires accuracy in establishing paternity.” (citations removed).

For all the details, read In the Matter of the Parentage of Q.A.L. 146 Wn.App 631 (September, 2008)

You may also wish to read the statute in dispute:

RCW 26.26.540 – Proceeding to adjudicate parentage — Time limitation: Child having acknowledged or adjudicated father.
(1) If a child has an acknowledged father, a signatory to the acknowledgment or denial of paternity must commence any proceeding seeking to rescind or challenge the paternity of that child only within the time allowed under RCW 26.26.330 or 26.26.335.

(2) If a child has an acknowledged father or an adjudicated father, an individual, other than the child, who is neither a signatory to the acknowledgment nor a party to the adjudication and who seeks an adjudication of paternity of the child must commence a proceeding not later than two years after the effective date of the acknowledgment or adjudication.