Background
After Caitlin Malay gave birth in September 2021, she and Christian Hernandez signed an acknowledgment of paternity, or AOP, believing Hernandez was the biological father. Hernandez later obtained genetic testing showing otherwise but served as the child’s primary caregiver for more than a year while Malay was incarcerated. Genetic testing obtained by Tyler Strang in November 2023, and confirmed in June 2024, indicated that Strang was the biological father.
Strang sought to intervene in proceedings between Malay and Hernandez and filed an action under A.R.S. § 25-803 to establish paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. The superior court concluded that Hernandez’s AOP had the force of a judgment and that Strang’s effort was untimely under A.R.S. § 25-812(E) and Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 85. Strang petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for special-action relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, holding that § 25-812(E) does not categorically bar a biological father who was not a party to an AOP from maintaining an independent paternity action under § 25-803. The Court distinguished an attempt by an AOP’s parties to set aside that acknowledgment—which remains governed by § 25-812(E) and Rule 85—from a nonparty putative father’s separate statutory claim.
The Court further held that an AOP is a paternity presumption under § 25-814(A)(4), not a litigated “court decree” that automatically defeats every competing presumption. If Strang proves that qualifying genetic testing creates a presumption under § 25-814(A)(2), the superior court must determine which presumption controls under § 25-814(C), based on the weightier considerations of policy and logic. The Court did not decide who is the child’s legal father or whether the AOP should be set aside, and it left equitable defenses and the ultimate resolution for the superior court on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A biological father who was not a party to an acknowledgment of paternity may pursue an independent paternity action under A.R.S. § 25-803.
- A properly filed AOP retains the force and effect of a judgment, but it does not automatically foreclose the competing-presumption analysis required by § 25-814(C).
- The superior court must determine whether Strang established a genetic-testing presumption and, if so, weigh it against Hernandez’s AOP while considering any preserved equitable defenses.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves conflicting Arizona appellate authority concerning whether an existing AOP bars a non-signatory biological father’s later paternity action. It preserves the statutory procedures and time limits for parties seeking relief from their own AOP while recognizing a separate path for a putative father who was outside that acknowledgment.
Vice Chief Justice Lopez, joined by Justices Beene and King, dissented, warning that the ruling undermines the finality of established paternity and leaves unresolved what happens to an existing AOP and the acknowledging father’s legal rights if a competing presumption prevails.