The Court of Appeals in K.A.T. v. C.A.B, addressed child support obligations for stepparents and the legal parameters thereof.
K.A.T., contested an order for child support arguing that the trial judge erred in holding him equitably estopped from denying that he was the father of the child, and thus obligated to pay child support.
Factually, the mother began dating K.A.T. who was not the biological father shortly before the child’s birth and the child called K.A.T. “daddy,” and K.A.T. referred to her as his daughter when in the company of others. Moreover, the putative father regularly went on outings with the child such as picnics and attending movies, and he sometimes bought the child clothing and toys. The child was never told during this period that he was not her biological father.
Parties lived in separate jurisdictions for a period of time but eventually married and K.A.T. declared his desire, upon marriage, to treat the child as his daughter and further signed an Acknowledgement of Parentage filed with the Government of the District of Columbia Vital Records Division, declaring himself to be the child’s father.
The marriage within few years broke down and the mother filed for divorce, dissolution of marriage and equitable distribution of joint property as well as child support.
On the issue of child support, the trial court ruled that K.A.T. had misled the child into believing he was her natural father by a conscious course of conduct for thirteen years and thus it would be inequitable not to hold him financially obligated for support payments essentially applying the kindred equitable notion of paternity by estoppel.
The Court of Appeals however ruled that although there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to impose on a stepparent the obligation to support a stepchild by invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel – the facts here did not support such imposition.
That is, equitable estoppel to deny a duty to support can be invoked only upon a showing that there was an express or implied misrepresentation of fact inducing another to alter his position to his prejudice. Stepparent must take positive action interfering with the natural parent’s support obligation to be bound by equitable estoppel. There must be elements of misrepresentation.
Here although K.A.T. may have encouraged or permitted the child to believe he was her natural father such was not tantamount to misrepresentation.
Moreover, the record failed to demonstrate that the child’s financial circumstances would be fundamentally altered by not imputing the support obligation upon K.A.T. The biological father may yet be found and support obligation may be imposed on him.
Thus, the Court reversed the order of support.
The Court analysis however masked the Acknowledgement of Paternity(AOP) signed by K.A.T. Under DC Code § 16-909.01, once AOP has been signed, legal obligation is statutory. There is only a period of sixty-days for filing a rescission. Thereafter, the document is legally enforceable and prima facie evidence of parentage only challengeable by claiming duress, fraud, or material mistake of facts.
Refer to our Washington DC Family Lawyer Page for more details on this subject.