# In Re the Welfare of C.M.G.

> Court of Appeals of Minnesota · May 24, 1994 · 516 N.W.2d 555

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690008

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the WELFARE OF C.M.G.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Minnesota
- **Decided:** May 24, 1994
- **Citations:** 516 N.W.2d 555; 1994 Minn. App. LEXIS 485; 1994 WL 199799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Short
- **Judges:** Davies, Short, Klaphake
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690008

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that district courts should determine which presumption “should lead to a declaration of paternity” by examining the facts of the case and considering the best interests of the child
- applying the best interest of the child standard in determining whether a blood test should be conducted to establish paternity and holding that "[w]here competing presumptions of paternity exist, the determination of paternity in no longer solely an issue of biological fact."
- concluding that child’s best interests is a valid policy consideration in resolving a conflict between competing presumptions of paternity
- affirming trial court’s order assigning parentage to putative father who signed acknowledgment of parentage, had established bond with child, wanted to continue to parent child, and was willing and able to support child over putative father who was found by blood tests to be c…
- affirming paternity adjudication where adjudicated father was not biological father, but was willing and able to support child and wanted to be child’s father, child bonded with adjudicated father and his family, other presumptive father did not want relationship with child, a…

## Opinion text

SHORT, Judge
(concurring specially).
I would affirm the trial court’s decision because a presumption of paternity based on a declaration of parentage becomes conclusive if not challenged within three years of the declaration. Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subd. 2(2) (1992); Wilson v. Speer, 499 N.W.2d 850, 854, n. 3 (Minn.App.), pet. for rev. granted *562 (Minn. July 19, 1993); see Pierce v. Pierce, 374 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Minn.App.) (three-year statute of limitations applies by analogy where contrary rule would be inconsistent with treatment of presumed fathers and would undermine purpose of promoting legitimacy), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 4, 1985). I write separately because I do not find competing presumptions of paternity.
The record demonstrates (1) four days after C.M.G.’s birth, Lyke and the mother executed a Declaration of Parentage, (2) the declaration was properly filed with the Department of Vital Statistics, (3) Lyke and the mother announced to all that Lyke is the biological father of C.M.G. and expenses associated with C.M.G.’s birth were paid by Lyke’s insurance, (4) for the last six years, C.M.G. has stayed with Lyke at least three days each week and called Lyke “daddy,” (5) Lyke has paid the mother $200 per month as child support since April 1988, and (6) no one challenged the declaration of parentage until this lawsuit. Under these facts and in light of Minn.Stat. § 257.57, subd. 2(2), the three-year statute of limitations bars this lawsuit to nullify the existence of Lyke’s relationship to C.M.G.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690008. Public record. Not legal advice.