CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. Norden

This case addresses whether an admission of paternity made to a social worker by a reputed father, in the presence of the mother, is a privileged communication under CPLR 4508. The court applied four conditions for establishing privilege and determined that the benefit of disclosing relevant paternity evidence outweighs any potential injury to the social worker-client relationship, as a correct paternity determination is vital for the child, mother, and community. Furthermore, drawing an analogy to attorney-client privilege, the court held that statements made to a social worker when two parties consult on a matter of common interest are not confidential in a subsequent action between them. Consequently, the court denied the motion to exclude the social worker's testimony, deeming the statements admissible in this civil filiation proceeding.

PaternitySocial Worker PrivilegeCPLR 4508ConfidentialityFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityChild SupportIllegitimate ChildFiliation ProceedingWigmore Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

This case concerns a paternity proceeding initiated by the petitioner father for the child Nia, born January 18, 1992. Despite blood tests excluding him as the biological father, the petitioner sought an order of filiation based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The respondent mother had consistently represented the petitioner as the child's father to family, hospital staff, and the CWA caseworker, accepting his financial and emotional support and allowing a strong father-child bond to develop. The court found the respondent's later denial of paternity incredible and applied equitable estoppel, concluding it was in the child's best interests to maintain the established father-child relationship. Consequently, an order of filiation was granted to the petitioner, adjudicating him as the child's father.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Heaven A. A. (Tyrone W.--Stephanie A.)

The case addresses whether a Family Court can terminate a putative father's parental rights for abandonment without first establishing paternity. SCO Family of Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Stephanie A. and putative father Tyrone W. for abandonment of their child, Heaven. Tyrone W. disputed paternity and requested a DNA test, which the Family Court denied, proceeding to find abandonment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a Family Court must make a threshold factual determination of paternity, through DNA testing if requested, before ruling on abandonment to terminate parental rights. The court emphasized the potential negative stigma of an abandonment finding on an individual whose paternity has not been established.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentPaternity DisputeDNA TestingFamily LawAdoption ConsentPutative Father RegistrySocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John J. S. v. Theresa L.

Elrich A. Eastman, an 18-year-old Marine, petitioned to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock to the 16-year-old respondent, Theresa L. Theresa L. moved for dismissal, arguing the proceeding was improper given the child was surrendered for adoption and a declaratory judgment was the correct legal avenue. The court dismissed Theresa L. as a direct party but recognized her representative capacity for her infant daughter. It affirmed its jurisdiction over paternity proceedings, stating they serve broader purposes than just support, including establishing inheritance rights and benefit eligibility. The court ultimately found Eastman's petition proper and granted a blood grouping test at his expense, denying counsel fees without prejudice.

PaternityFamily LawInfant RespondentDeclaratory JudgmentBlood Grouping TestCounsel FeesChild CustodyAdoption RightsParental RightsStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. W2007-02122-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2008

In Re: A.N.F. (d/o/b 10/24/99), a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning post-divorce petitions to modify a parenting plan and establish paternity. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decisions regarding custody and parentage for two minor children, A.N.F. and C.S.F. The trial court had dismissed the petition to establish Mr. S's parentage of A.N.F., terminated his parental rights, and affirmed Mr. F's legal paternity. It also denied Mrs. F's request for primary custody and restricted her visitation with the children due to false allegations of abuse against Mr. F and interference with his relationship with the children. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's overall judgment, but modified Mrs. F's visitation to remove the supervision requirement and reinstated Christmas and Spring vacation visitation.

Child CustodyPaternity DisputeParental AlienationFalse Abuse AllegationsParenting Plan ModificationVoluntary Acknowledgment of PaternityTermination of Parental RightsBest Interest of ChildVisitation RightsAppellate Review
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sondra S. v. Jay O.

This case addresses whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a paternity proceeding against a putative father who died prior to the commencement of the proceeding. The petitioner initiated the paternity action to establish that the deceased respondent is the father of her child, born out of wedlock. The court examined prior judicial decisions, legislative amendments, and the use of HLA blood tests in paternity cases. It concluded that recent legislative changes and case law imply that such actions should survive the putative father's death. The court ultimately found sufficient authority to permit the filing of the paternity petition and directed the petitioner to serve the deceased father's parents as respondents to ensure an adversarial proceeding.

Paternity JurisdictionPosthumous PaternityChild Support ObligationsEstate InheritanceBlood Test Evidence (HLA)Family Court AuthorityStatutory InterpretationSurvival of ActionDue ProcessLegal Guardianship (for child)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kordek v. Wood

The New York Appellate Division addressed whether Family Court retains jurisdiction to establish paternity even when child support is neither sought nor ordered. The case arose from a petitioner's appeal after Family Court dismissed his paternity petition, reasoning that a lack of financial need for support negated its jurisdiction. Reversing this decision, the appellate court clarified that Family Court Act § 511 does not condition jurisdiction on financial need, empowering the court to issue custody and visitation orders concurrently with or independently of support orders. The court underscored that a filiation order confers numerous significant rights and obligations, indicating a legislative intent to expand the scope of paternity proceedings beyond mere public indemnification for child support. Consequently, the original order of filiation was reinstated, emphasizing the evolving legal framework for paternity.

PaternityFamily Court JurisdictionChild SupportFiliation OrderVisitation RightsDeclaratory JudgmentParental RightsOut-of-wedlock ChildrenStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. 02A01-9605-JV-00123
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1997

Mary Helen Pearson Johnson v. Luther William Johnson

The case involves an appeal by Luther William Johnson from a trial court's dismissal of his motion to set aside a consent order of paternity and support. Johnson, previously declared the father of a child with Mary Helen Pearson Johnson, sought relief after paternity testing identified John Jones as the biological father, a fact later admitted by the mother. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying res judicata and judicial estoppel, emphasizing the "overriding importance" of ensuring an individual conclusively established not to be a father is not legally declared one. The court highlighted the "extraordinary circumstances of extreme hardship" caused by the conflicting paternity orders and the mother's admission. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling, stressing the judicial system's role in preventing such contradictory legal statuses and protecting the child's welfare.

Paternity DisputeChild Support EnforcementConsent Order ChallengeFraudulent MisrepresentationDNA Paternity TestRes Judicata DoctrineJudicial EstoppelRule 60.02 ReliefAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court Jurisdiction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,892 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational