Background
Christopher S. filed a petition in Kanawha County Family Court on August 15, 2025, seeking DNA testing to establish whether he was the biological father of B.W., a child born in 2019. He alleged that he and B.W.’s mother, Jordan L., had been involved around the likely time of conception, while Joshua W. had also had a relationship with Jordan L.
The family court dismissed the petition ten days later. It found that B.W.’s paternity had already been established by a November 26, 2019 order in a prior case, making the new action barred by res judicata. The court also found laches and concluded that a second paternity determination was not in the child’s best interests. Christopher, acting without counsel, appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. Christopher’s appellate arguments challenged the family court’s laches and best-interests rationale, including his contention that DNA testing was appropriate regardless of the child’s age.
But he did not challenge the family court’s separate and independent determination that paternity had already been judicially established and that his action was therefore barred by res judicata. Because that unchallenged ground independently supported dismissal, the court held that his failure to address it was fatal to the appeal. The court declined to decide whether the family court’s alternative laches-and-best-interests rationale was erroneous.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting the judgment.
- An unchallenged res judicata ruling can independently require affirmance.
- The appellate court did not decide whether laches or the child’s best interests separately justified dismissal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores an appellate preservation rule with practical force in family-law cases: even potentially substantial arguments about paternity testing cannot obtain reversal if an independent dispositive basis for dismissal goes unchallenged.
For litigants seeking to reopen or relitigate parentage issues, the prior adjudication and any resulting claim-preclusion barrier must be directly addressed on appeal.